PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on 13 March 2002.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Micro-credit Agencies

Paddy Tipping: What support her Department gives to micro-credit agencies in south-east Asia.

Hilary Benn: Micro- finance services play an important role in enabling families to earn a living and reduce their vulnerability to poverty. In south-east Asia, working through the Women's World Banking programme and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest, we are supporting micro-credit programmes in the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia and Thailand. We are also directly funding a project in Vietnam working with a number of non-governmental organisations.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of micro-credit agencies in helping to create sustainable infrastructure, especially when resources are focused on women and the poorest members of the community?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Micro-finance is all about spreading the risk and helping people to earn income from a variety of activities. The average loan is very small—the smallest is about $30, the largest about $300—and between 70 and 80 per cent. of users of micro-finance are women, so it plays an additional role in improving their position in society.

Caroline Spelman: I agree with the Minister that micro-credit agencies are an excellent way in which to spur economic development in poor countries. There is no doubt that Afghanistan is one Asian country in dire need of economic development. Given that that country is faced with starvation, does he share my exasperation at reports of poppy growing increasing again and our apparent impotence in the face of that problem? What ideas other than micro-credit to get farmers to diversify production has the Department come up with to tackle that pernicious trade?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the problem of the recurrence of poppy growing in Afghanistan. The whole House knows that the ultimate solution to that problem is to enable farmers for whom that is a source of income—for some, the only source—to find an alternative livelihood. Micro-finance and other methods of support offer ways in the long term to enable farmers to depart that trade and earn a living, as the whole House wants.

Cameroon

David Chaytor: What plans she has to assist poverty reduction programmes in Cameroon.

Clare Short: In Cameroon our development efforts are focused on the forestry sector, which is crucial to Cameroon's overall economy and the livelihoods of a majority of poor people. We have worked in this sector for a considerable period and hope to provide support for a long-term forestry and environmental programme that is part of a strong poverty reduction strategy. That will require a greater effort by the Government to combat corruption.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is it not the case that 40 per cent. of Cameroon's population live below the poverty line and 29 per cent. are malnourished; and only 1 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on health care, whereas 6 per cent. of GDP is spent on debt repayment? Will she argue the case for greater help from the international community for debt relief for Cameroon at the Monterrey conference later this month?

Clare Short: Cameroon has been grossly misgoverned. Although there has been a lot of improvement recently, there was terrible corruption and misuse of own resources resulting in extremely poor health and education programmes for poor people. Such is the history of the country. Recent improvements include a better election, better management of the economy and better economic growth.
	Cameroon has qualified for considerable debt relief. I do not understand why those who lead the campaign for debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries do not celebrate the fact that 25 countries have now qualified and more than $50 billion of debt has been written off. That is a considerable achievement which in all the countries involved has leveraged much better economic management and social expenditure. That is what is happening in Cameroon. Things are improving, but there is a long way to go.

John Baron: Given that Poland receives twice as much aid from the European Union overseas aid package as Latin America and Asia combined, and that the top 10 beneficiaries are all countries that border the EU, I put it to the Secretary of State that the Government could do far more to support the poor people of Cameroon by stopping the EU playing petty politics with the poor of the world, and by redirecting the £800 million a year we send to the EU to those countries that really need it, such as Cameroon.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. European Community total aid spending keeps turning further and further away from prioritising the poor: 70 per cent. went to the poorest countries a few years ago; that fell to 50 per cent., and it will be 38 per cent. this year. That is a disgrace and an outrage. That failure was not attended to in the past, before 1997. I have made it an absolute priority to expose how bad the position is and to secure a commitment to a reform agenda that is rolling through the EC, but we need stronger support from Foreign Ministers who like to use aid money for immediate political priorities, which is not the best use of the money. It should be invested in creating systems of government that improve countries' economies and provide services to their people. The hon. Gentleman is right: we still have a considerable problem.

Julia Drown: May I say that I think that there is agreement between my right hon. Friend and people campaigning for more debt relief? There is a celebration of everything that this and other Governments have achieved but, like her, those people believe that more has to be done.
	On Cameroon, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the time between decision point and completion point for heavily indebted poor countries there are particular problems which even the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have recognised? Changes in commodity prices mean that the help that Cameroon was to get has been reduced. At Monterrey will she push for flexibility to be built in for HIPC so that countries such as Cameroon benefit more and real poverty can be addressed?

Clare Short: I certainly agree that the continuing fall in commodity prices is a serious problem for many heavily indebted poor countries, as was the rise in oil prices, although they are now going down. Long before Monterrey, we agreed at previous World Bank and IMF meetings that when countries complete their reform process and get their debts written off, we need to re-examine the formula for debt sustainability. If they have had a problem with falling commodity prices, they will need extra help to exit from their debt burden.
	Many people are saying that debt relief has failed, but it has not. The next tranche of countries that need assistance are largely in conflict—Sudan, Burma and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The capacity to deliver that relief might help to incentivise the making of peace. We must drive on with that, not start calling for debt relief for middle-income countries that do not need it.

Tanzania

Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the steps her Department is taking to help reduce poverty in Tanzania.

Clare Short: The UK is one of the major development partners of Tanzania, which has made significant advances in recent years. For example, the Tanzanian economy is growing at 5 per cent. annually and primary school enrolment is set to double this year.

Stephen O'Brien: I join the Secretary of State in celebrating the qualification of a number of countries to the HIPC community. I think that the right hon. Lady would agree with me that Tanzania is one of the best examples of good governance and a commitment to democratic institutions, thus justifying our aid and trade incentives and debt relief to help health and education programmes. If we look nearby in Africa at the appalling example of Zimbabwe, how can we justify continuing to give aid to countries ruled by tyrants and dictators? The aid does not get to the people through their health and education programmes and is given at the cost of being able to continue to support countries such as Tanzania which have done what is required to justify that aid.

Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been concentrating; Tanzania is making considerable progress but has had problems of governance and democracy in Zanzibar. As well as its serious corruption problems, its public financial management systems need strengthening, and we are trying to help in that regard. It is moving forward, but I do not agree that it is an example of perfect governance—it is an example of progress where more needs to be done.
	Zimbabwe is, of course, a total tragedy for all its people, with negative economic growth and terrible brutality in attempts to distort the election outcome. We have modified the way in which we provide aid to make sure that nothing is provided to the Government—we give help to the people of Zimbabwe. There is hunger in that agriculturally rich country and through the World Food Programme and other organisations we are helping to provide food aid to stop people going hungry.
	Zimbabwe also has a terribly high HIV/AIDS infection rate, affecting one in three adults. Zimbabwe's Government have not taken action, but we have a fairly big HIV/AIDS programme operating there. I do not think that the people of Zimbabwe should be sentenced to infection by HIV/AIDS because of their Government's neglect, or that the international community should do nothing.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in Uganda, for example, the programmes referred to by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are in place and there is a direct link between debt relief and improving primary education. In meeting those millennium goals, is it possible to tie together more closely future debt relief programmes so that they link directly to the appalling state of public services such as health and education? We are leading by example, so will my right hon. Friend play a key role in ensuring that world partners meet the fantastic goals that we have managed to achieve? What steps can she take to encourage them to match our targets and bring their targets up to the same speed?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Uganda set up a fund for its debt relief to make sure that it was spent on the poor. We have done better than that in the enhanced HIPC initiative. In order to qualify for debt relief, it is now an absolute requirement on every country that it puts in place a poverty reduction strategy on which it consults all its people. That will combine the management of the macro-economy to make the economy grow and reduce poverty, and all the country's aid revenues and debt relief spent on bringing proper public services to the poor. The debt relief is thus leveraging massively better economic management and public sector programmes to help the poor, and doing that extremely well.
	It is true that the UK's programme is focused on helping countries to meet the international development goals. The Scandinavian countries are with us in that. We could increase by 50 per cent. the value of the $50 billion of aid that there is in the international system if everyone would focus it on the poor and back reformers. There is a lot to do.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State feel vindicated by the World Bank report on the air traffic control project in Tanzania, as that report suggests that she was right and her Cabinet colleagues were wrong, and suggests that the project was poor value for money and bad for Tanzania's development? Will she now try to re-open that issue in order to get the contract cancelled?

Clare Short: The UK Government decided not to refuse a licence for the British Aerospace air traffic control system on the grounds that buying it would affect the sustainable development of Tanzania. There was a difference of view within the Government about that, but that is not the end of the matter. Before that, the Tanzanian Government had given a written undertaking to the World Bank board to review the contract in the light of an International Civil Aviation Organisation report which stated that the technology was extremely expensive and old, and that Tanzania does not have any military aircraft and could get a much cheaper modern civilian air traffic control system. The Government of Tanzania are still committed to that review, so the fact that the UK has issued a licence does not mean that Tanzania will necessarily buy the system. The contract is at present frozen and Tanzania must honour its commitment to the World Bank board. That was a condition of it completing its debt relief programme.

Piara S Khabra: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what contact she has had with EU member states in order to tackle world poverty?

Clare Short: I have frequent contact with EU member states about how we might better tackle world poverty. We have discussed how we might combine to improve the use of EC aid resources. Of course, the EU took a leading position at Doha on improving trading rights for developing countries. All of that is important. The money that we put through the Commission and the member states in development aid is 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid, and the EU is the biggest market destination for the exports of developing countries. By doing better, the EU could transform the prospects of developing countries. We are making progress but there is a lot left to do.

Caroline Spelman: It was brave of the Secretary of State to say publicly that if it were up to her, she would not have issued a licence for the sale of the air defence system to Tanzania. Does she agree that such a dispute at the heart of Government will discourage further private investment in places such as Africa? Does she also agree that it has undermined the credibility of the Government's policy of relieving debt in order to refocus those resources on health and education?

Clare Short: One person's bravery is another person's recklessness, but I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments. Disputes at the heart of Government are entirely healthy. Ministers holding different views and arguing them out is what Cabinet Government is all about, and long may it continue.
	I took a certain view on whether the licence should have been issued, but the hon. Lady might want to note that the power to refuse a licence because an arms contract might affect the sustainable development of a poor country was not in place under the Government whom she supported. It is a new provision introduced by our Government. I took the view that I did; Tanzania will make its decision in its own interests, but I do not believe that that argument in our Government undermines the prospects of investment in Africa.

CDC Capital Partners

Peter Duncan: What proportion of the investment of CDC Capital Partners last year was in poor countries.

Clare Short: All of CDC's investment last year was in developing countries and 73 per cent. in poorer developing countries. CDC also met the investment policy targets in 2001. I remain strongly convinced that the conversion of CDC to a partnership dedicated to mobilising more private sector investment in developing countries is the right way forward and I strongly support the work of Alan Gillespie and his leadership team. This policy was of course fully endorsed by Parliament when the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 was passed with all-party support, although The Times journalist did not appear to know that the matter had been endorsed by Parliament and therefore put it on his front page.

Peter Duncan: The Secretary of State will recall that the Opposition said that investment in the poorest countries would decline and it gives us no pleasure to point out that, sadly, that has borne fruit. What will she say to the poor and vulnerable farmers in sub-Saharan Africa who see investment programmes in agriculture cancelled and replaced by investment in shopping malls and mobile telephone companies?

Clare Short: I visit Africa frequently and I have many discussions with poor communities and villages as well as elected Ministers, and they are all anxious to attract inward investment that will bring about the transfer of technology in telecommunications, electricity, sanitation, water and transport that is needed for improved economic performance. The purpose of CDC's restructuring was to encourage more private sector investment of that kind and to show that there can be returns on responsible and beneficial investment in Africa which will attract the private sector. Some agricultural investments with low rates of returns have been sold on to their African managers, and that is the right policy and we intend to continue with it. [Interruption.]
	It is incredibly noisy, Mr. Speaker and difficult to hear the questions from the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the right hon. Lady. It is only fair to the Minister and to those asking questions that hon. Members should be silent.

Nick Hawkins: Despite the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), does she not recognise that there is great concern in many countries in southern Africa that the result of the Government's policy, ignoring the warnings of Opposition Members, has been significantly to reduce investment in countries such as Malawi? What has been the specific effect on countries such as Malawi and others in southern Africa?
	While we are on the subject of southern Africa, have the right hon. Lady's Department and other parts of the Government any contingency plans in case there has to be a mass evacuation following the Zimbabwean election?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but my Department is not responsible for any such evacuation. Obviously, the Government have plans for such matters. The hon. Gentleman can take that as read. On this question, as on so many others since his new appointment, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Africa desperately needs increased investment in electricity and sanitation. Half of humanity has no sanitation, and the lack of clean water causes constant illness, ill health and the death of children. Electricity and telecommunications are needed so that the people can be part of the internet and the knowledge economy. The restructuring of CDC to encourage more of such investment is welcomed by all who take a serious interest in improving investment in Africa.

Botswana

Candy Atherton: What recent representations she has made to the Government of Botswana regarding access to water by the San bushmen of the central Kalahari.

Hilary Benn: The policy of the Government of Botswana is that the San bushmen should move from their traditional settlements in the Central Kalahari game reserve to locations where the Government feel that they will have better economic opportunities and access to services. We have made representations about the need to maintain water supplies for those San remaining in the reserve, but our high commissioner in Botswana has today reported that water supplies have now been withdrawn.

Candy Atherton: What action will the Government take now that the Government of Botswana have dismantled the water pumps and drained the water tanks of the San bushmen in order to force them out of the central Kalahari? Is not that a form of ethnic cleansing?

Hilary Benn: I understand my hon. Friend's concern because I know that she has taken a close interest in the welfare of the San bushmen for a number of years. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, the House is far too noisy.

Hilary Benn: It is precisely for that reason that we have made representations about the decision to stop funding water supplies. Those San remaining—the estimates vary from between 20 to 100 people—now have to obtain water supplies either from those that they have conserved, or from those that have been brought into the reserve, or from the mine site at Gope. A legal case against the Government, arguing that the withdrawal of water supplies is unlawful, is scheduled to be heard next Wednesday and we should await the outcome.

Jenny Tonge: The Minister will be aware that elections will take place in Botswana's neighbour, Zimbabwe, next weekend. Whatever the result, refugees may try to cross the border into Botswana, thus affecting the welfare of the bushmen of the central Kalahari. What discussion has he had with Botswana and other countries that may be affected to ensure that the borders stay open and that adequate financial help is given for food, water and shelter for the refugees?

Hilary Benn: I have not had such discussions with the Government of Botswana. If those problems were to arise, they would have to be dealt with at the time. The one thing on which the whole House would agree is our wish that the elections in Zimbabwe should be free and fair so that the people of that country can choose the Government for their future.

Universal Primary Education

Bob Blizzard: What steps she is taking in pursuit of the goal of free universal primary education in developing countries by 2015.

Clare Short: We are working hard to mobilise the international development system to focus more sharply on the delivery of the commitment to universal primary education by 2015. We have made clear in all forums our view that this goal can be achieved only if primary education is free. We are also working in 29 countries to support delivery of this policy and, since 1997, we have committed £650 million to that work. We will do more.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Poorer countries are supposed to have developed education-for-all plans by September, and richer countries have pledged that those plans will not fail through lack of financial support. What is the international position in relation to the deadline and the pledge, which are very important if we are to overcome the problem of charging for basic education in developing countries?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Through UNESCO and the high-level group co-ordinating implementation, we are trying to drive a country- by-country review across the world to make sure that reformers are helped and backed up. Tanzania has double the number of children entering primary school this year because charging has been dropped. Despite moves forward across the world, some countries are not making progress, and more pressure must be put on them. Money alone cannot achieve our aim—Governments must be committed to the objective and willing to put in place the reforms and then the international financial support will follow. We have made some progress but more is needed. We are trying to focus the international effort so that countries that are failing to make progress feel that they are under more pressure to do so.

Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that money alone will not do the job. She will be aware of huge corruption in some of the countries in the third world and in developing nations. What steps are she and her colleagues taking to try to stamp out such corruption and ensure that money directed at education goes to the very people that she and her Government are trying to help?

Clare Short: I have said to the hon. Gentleman before that something comes over him when he puts on his red tie—he starts talking sense. He is right that aid is useful and powerful in driving reform and advance where there are a lot of poor people and where there are reformers. It can speed up economic development and health and education provision, which in turn moves countries forward. Corruption, which wastes those resources and blocks progress, has been neglected in the past as an embarrassing question, but no more. We now focus with others on cleaning up financial management systems, on making sure that public finances are run transparently, on proper procurement and on strong anti-corruption authorities. That is the only way to ensure economic development. We are driving that policy as hard as we can.

Disease Prevention

Chris Grayling: What actions she is taking to combat (a) HIV/AIDS, (b) TB and (c) malaria in the developing world.

Clare Short: Approximately half of infectious disease deaths in developing countries can be attributed to three diseases: HIV, TB and malaria, which cause more than 5 million deaths per year. My Department is working to strengthen developing countries' health systems and we have committed more than £1 billion to that purpose since 1997. The UK has also taken an active role in establishing the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which is designed to improve provision of drugs and commodities to treat those diseases. I have pledged $200 million from my budget over five years for the fund.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does she share the view held by those on the Conservative Benches that the United Nations global health fund should be using some of its resources to ensure that AIDS and HIV sufferers in Africa have access to the drugs that they need?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fund's purpose is to make drugs and commodities available. That includes, for example, HIV testing; most people with HIV do not even know that they have it and do not take action to protect themselves and to ensure that they do not infect others. Many people with HIV get TB, become unable to work and then become impoverished, and so on. The fund is meant to supply drugs and commodities, get the prices down by making big orders, ensure reliability of supply and exert leverage in developing countries to ensure that they have better systems to deliver. HIV/AIDS prevention is better than the use of anti-retrovirals to keep people alive, so that is our major focus, but lower priced anti-retrovirals are now available from pharmaceutical companies where delivery systems are in place.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael Jack: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 March.

Tony Blair: This morning, I returned from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I shall make a statement on it later today, in addition to having further meetings.

Michael Jack: The Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is proposing to close 37 of its elderly persons care homes and the associated day care centres. May I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of the vulnerable elderly in Lancashire if he can persuade the Department of Health to discuss this matter with Lancashire county council, with a view to withdrawing the proposal? All Lancashire's Conservative and Labour MPs oppose the proposal, which will do nothing for the quality of life of elderly people in the county and presents a threat to their homes.

Tony Blair: I understand that Ministers in the Department have asked to be kept fully informed of the situation, and they will no doubt discuss it with the county council. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he will know, under this Government, spending on social services has increased by about 20 per cent. Of course, throughout the country, councils are considering how best to care for elderly people. As a result of the extra investment that we will be putting in in the next three years, we will have an additional £1.4 billion going into care for the elderly. However, as I said, in respect of these particular plans, the Department will be in touch with the county council.

David Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the key economic role that is played by the British film industry. For example, my constituency has been the location for blockbusting films such as "Braveheart", "Rob Roy" and, more recently, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Does he share my view that the planned multi-million pound highland film studio will be vital in ensuring that the film industry in Britain can compete on the world stage?

Tony Blair: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Scottish film industry on the strength of Scottish film production. As he said, it is renowned throughout the world. It is true, of course, that as a result of measures introduced by the Chancellor, the British film industry as a whole has enjoyed considerable success in the past few years. I wish the proposal well. Obviously, it is an important matter for the Scottish Executive as well, but I understand that about £20 million of private sector money could also come in. I hope very much that his constituency will see the benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith: Given the wholly unacceptable decision of the United States to impose steel tariffs, will the Prime Minister stand by his statement of a few weeks ago, when he said of Mr. Mittal's firm, LNM:
	"I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded"?—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 199.]

Tony Blair: Of course, the British Government stand by the policy that we have outlined, which is to oppose the tariffs introduced by the United States. They are unacceptable and wrong, and they affect not only Britain but the European Community and other countries throughout the world. In our view, the problems of the American steel industry are best solved by restructuring that industry, not by imposing arbitrary and unjustified tariffs.

Iain Duncan Smith: Well, of course they are, but we have a problem here, because the company that the Prime Minister celebrated as a British company spent $600,000 on lobbying the United States Government to impose tariffs on steel imports. Those tariffs will, of course, affect the United Kingdom steel industry. As one chief executive put it this morning:
	"The only measure we have had out of 10 Downing Street on steel is their support for a non-UK steel manufacturer."
	It took the Prime Minister 30 seconds to write a letter supporting a non-British company producing anti-British policies, yet it takes him months to write a letter to the US President to stand up for British interests. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to the British steel workers who may lose their jobs?

Tony Blair: First, in relation to the British steel industry, let us take no lessons from a Conservative party that destroyed 100,000 British steel jobs while in government. Secondly, in relation to the American Administration, this matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last July, and it has been raised with the American Administration at every level of this Government. It is important that, together with other European countries, we now pursue the right remedies through the World Trade Organisation.

Iain Duncan Smith: In case the Prime Minister has not noticed, he has been in power for almost five years, during which time nearly 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Ten thousand of those were steel jobs, so we do not need any lectures from him, either. When will he understand that his Government's misconduct affects people outside Westminster? What he arrogantly dismissed as "Garbagegate" some weeks ago will affect the lives and work of thousands of people who look to him for protection. It seems that the only mistake that the steelworkers and the steel industry made was not to give more money to the Labour party, because we now know that the Prime Minister always puts the interests of his friends before the interests of the British people.

Tony Blair: First, let me repeat that this is a decision by the American Administration in respect not only of Britain but of imports into the United States from all countries. It is, therefore, absurd to suggest that it is somehow directed only against Britain. In respect of the decision, we have made representations at every level of Government and will continue to do so through the European Union. In respect of manufacturing and steel jobs, however, some people remember the two recessions under the last Conservative Government, and the millions of jobs that were lost when manufacturing output declined by somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. It is under the Labour Government that economic stability has been achieved, delivering—instead of 3 million unemployed—more than 1 million extra jobs in this country.

Mike Wood: I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will share the horror felt throughout the House at the sectarian violence in Gujerat, which has so far claimed the lives of at least 500 people, including my constituent Mohammed Aswat in an incident that also led to the disappearance of two more of my constituents—of whom nothing has been heard for five days—and the leaving for dead of another. Will my right hon. Friend agree to see a delegation of hon. Members, such as myself, who have constituents in Gujerat, where the violence persists, to discuss how those British nationals can safely and quickly be repatriated? Secondly, will he make every effort to have my two missing constituents, Sakim and Saeed Dawood, found, and to have those responsible for the attack on them, and for the death of Mr. Aswat, brought quickly to justice?

Tony Blair: I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues involved, and if they wish to meet me after that, I shall be happy to meet them. Secondly, we express our deep sympathy and condolences from all parts of the House to those who lost their lives in Gujerat. We are in close touch with the Indian authorities and will do everything that we can to assist them to bring this distressing violence to an end.

Charles Kennedy: This time last week, the Prime Minister told me that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should be judged on his record. Since then, the Strategic Rail Authority has discovered a £8 billion hole in the Transport Secretary's proposed budget. Today City fund managers have signed a round-robin letter to the Chancellor in which they say that the way in which the Railtrack administration was handled will severely dent future investor confidence. What does that say about the Transport Secretary's record in the past week?

Tony Blair: On the first point, something over £60 billion of public and private money will go into the railways. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As for the decision to put the company into administration, I thought we had explained on many occasions—indeed, I thought this had some support from the Liberal Democrats—that the reason for its being put into administration was the huge losses that it had suffered. We simply could not continue with those losses.
	As for the letter from the fund managers, these are fund managers who are also investors and shareholders in Railtrack. Therefore they are, as it were, in dispute with the Government in their role as shareholders. The best answer I can give them is that some £6 billion has already been committed as part of the private-sector investment in the railways, and we have no doubt that there will be more.

Charles Kennedy: It is not just a question of the loss of confidence among City fund managers; it is a question of the loss of confidence among the travelling public, the loss of confidence in the Department, and—remember—the loss of confidence in the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
	Let me return to the question that I asked this time last week. Just what does it take for the Prime Minister to lose confidence in his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: I entirely support the decision to put Railtrack into administration. As I said, I thought the Liberal Democrats understood the reasons for that very well. I suspect that we are witnessing something of a piece of opportunism in their turning round afterwards and saying that it was not right—[Interruption.] I agree, of course, that that would be highly unusual in the case of the Liberal Democrats.
	The plain fact is that, as I pointed out, the fund managers who wrote today are the fund managers who are investors and shareholders in Railtrack. They are therefore currently negotiating with the Government over the amount of compensation. The best answer I can give is that the private-sector investment is coming in. As I said, £6 billion has already been allocated. Between July last year and March this year, some 44 different private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts had been agreed. There is no shortage of private-sector involvement in these projects.

Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the 15th anniversary of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, in which 193 crew and passengers perished. He will also know that this morning we held our annual memorial service at the port of Dover. Will he join me in extending sympathy to the friends and families of those who were lost, and in paying tribute to the bravery of those who gave their lives that others might live? Will he also ensure that the United Kingdom Government continue to take the lead in promoting higher international standards of safety at sea, so that the effects of an appalling 140 losses of ships at sea every year do not continue?

Tony Blair: On the anniversary of a tragic event that I think all Members will remember, let me express our sympathy to the family and friends of those concerned, and also pay tribute to their bravery and to the selfless courage exercised by many of the victims in helping those in distress at the time of the accident. As for improving the safety standards of ro-ro ferries, my hon. Friend may know that we are pursuing that in the International Maritime Organisation, and also urging the European Union to take it up. I agree that the level of accidents is currently unacceptable, but we are working in every possible forum to bring it down.

Vincent Cable: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look at the report of the Royal College of Radiologists, which explains why many of our constituents who have been diagnosed with cancer are now having to wait at least two to three months for radiotherapy? As the national health service is the Prime Minister's top priority, and as cancer is the top priority within that top priority, can he explain why the Government have been so slow to address the issue of retention and recruitment of key staff, and why the situation is still deteriorating?

Tony Blair: We are, of course, training more staff. One reason why there have been longer waits for radiotherapy is precisely because of the additional consultants, additional investment in machines and other investment in the health service and cancer services. More and more people are being referred for radiotherapy, but the numbers in radiotherapy are increasing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the audit was carried out some time ago, and I think that he will find that we are managing to improve the situation for radiotherapy services across the country.

Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is costing the taxpayer £400 million a year to clear up the millions of tons of litter dropped on our streets and in our open spaces? Although we have litter laws, only a few hundred prosecutions are made a year. As my private Member's Bill seems unlikely to find parliamentary time—[Hon. Members: "Aah!"]—will he introduce legislation to allow councils to keep the money raised through fixed penalty fines, so that they can employ people to enforce the litter laws? That way, we can clear up this country and make the polluter pay.

Tony Blair: I am aware of my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill. The Government in principle support the proposal to allow local authorities to spend the money that they get from fines on improving the litter situation in their area. As one part of that, we have recently increased—indeed, doubled—the penalties for litter, and it is important that we continue to make every effort that we can to deal with a problem that may seem trivial, but which is very important for people in their local communities.

David Trimble: Does the Prime Minister remember assuring the public during the campaign for a "yes" vote, following the Belfast agreement, that the early release scheme would not be an amnesty? In particular does he recall the following statement, issued by the Northern Ireland Information Service:
	"There will be no amnesty."?
	Indeed, the word "amnesty" was underlined. That was part of the basis on which people voted for the agreement. Does the Prime Minister realise that for a lot of good people who have stuck with the agreement through thick and thin, and who have had to put up with quite a lot recently, the Government's going back on their word and breaking faith with them will be the last straw?

Tony Blair: First, it is of course right that people released under the early release scheme as prisoners be released on licence. Should they breach the terms of that licence, they can be readmitted to prison. Secondly, we made it clear at Weston Park that this was an issue to be dealt with. We will deal with it, but how we do so is open to discussion.

Valerie Davey: Fair trade fortnight encourages all of us to support producers of tea, coffee and cocoa, yet the processors of those products in the developed world are still getting the greatest profit. What can the Government further do to develop fair trade and to open the common European Union markets to processed goods from developing countries?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important and serious issue. It is being raised in the context of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, which began at Doha last year. Of course, she is absolutely right to say that, for many of the poorest countries in the world, what is more important even than aid is access to western markets. I very much hope that—as part of the partnership agreement with Africa, which we hope to conclude at this year's G8 summit, in Canada—the developed world will give a clear steer and sense of direction that we are prepared to ensure that our markets are indeed open, not just to goods that are raw materials, but to processed goods.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not want to frighten the Prime Minister, but I agree with him on one thing: although the Liberal Democrats supported his programme to take over Railtrack, they did not support the minority report of the Committee. They are probably the only people in history to try to jump on a bandwagon, only to roll under it. Perhaps he can answer the real question: will raising private investment in public services prove more or less expensive as a result of the actions of his Secretary of State?

Tony Blair: As regards the investment that we can get into the railways, the only decision that we could possibly have taken was to secure additional private investment by putting Railtrack into administration, then bringing it out in a restructured form. There was no way in which we as a Government could have carried on pouring billions of pounds into a failed company. That would have affected our ability to raise the money.
	Therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is no, I do not believe that it is more expensive. We will only ever get proper investment into our railways by halting privatisation, which did so much damage, restructuring the company and relaunching it on a proper footing.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is wrong. It is now well known that under the 10-year plan he expects to raise £35 billion, but the Government's credit rating has been so downgraded that it is calculated that it will cost at least £1 billion extra to raise that money. The group of investors who wrote today in The Times,
	"This will increase the cost to the taxpayer",
	were absolutely spot on. Must not the Prime Minister now make a clear choice between getting private sector investment into his railway programme or getting rid of his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: No, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out a moment ago, we have already committed £6 billion. Indeed, there was a recent commitment for extra private sector investment in the Chiltern line.
	The difference between us and the right hon. Gentleman is that he would have carried on with Railtrack as it was—a privatised company siphoning off billions of pounds from the Treasury. We believe that it should have been put into administration; he would want us to pay £1 billion in compensation to the shareholders, including the 20 fund managers who wrote to The Times. That money should be going into our railways, but the right hon. Gentleman would give it to the shareholders. That is the difference between us.

Iain Duncan Smith: The one thing that is absolutely certain about us is that we would not have such a Transport Secretary, who, according to the letter and to every single commentator, has lost the trust of business and of the civil service, and is now going to make the public pay through more delays and extra costs in raising the money for public services. The real price of the Prime Minister's weak—I repeat, weak—refusal to sack the Transport Secretary is that the public will have to pay more tax for less service.

Tony Blair: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government had a Transport Secretary who privatised Railtrack in the first place and left us in this situation. Not only was that botched privatisation allowed to take place, but—according to the Public Administration Committee when it was headed by the right hon. Member who is now chairman of the Conservative party—the way in which it was sold meant that the public lost billions of pounds on the sale. The Conservatives were responsible not only for that botched privatisation, but for losing public money on it.
	The plain fact of the matter is that we have set aside public money for extra investment in the railways. That will result in billions of pounds going in over the next few years, along with money from the private sector. We support that investment and the right hon. Gentleman opposes it. That is the true test of commitment to Britain's railways.

Diane Abbott: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing concern in the country that we may be moving by degrees towards war with Iraq? Does he accept that in the event that British troops are sent into action, there should be a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?

Tony Blair: Of course, were we ever to take action in respect of Iraq there should be an opportunity for the House to express its view, as indeed it has in respect of Afghanistan. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend that no decisions have yet been taken about any possible action in respect of Iraq.
	I remind my hon. Friend that two days after 11 September I made a statement in the House in which I said that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was an important issue that we would have to tackle; and we do have to tackle it. Iraq is plainly in breach of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the accumulation of weapons, and we must deal with that. How we do so is a matter for discussion and consultation.

David Heath: When the Prime Minister next returns from overseas, will he forget the official car and instead take the train into Paddington? As he does so, will he reflect that we still do not know whether 41 recommendations from Lord Cullen on safety after the Paddington rail crash have yet been implemented, despite the deadline being three months ago? The Prime Minister says that his priority is rail safety. Can he guarantee that those safety improvements are now finished? If not, why on earth does he have confidence in his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: We are taking forward the proposals on safety recommended by Cullen, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the safety record of the British rail industry overall, he will see that it is not declining, but improving. I would have thought that he recognised that. He will know that, according to the recent figures, the degree to which there have been incidents involving a lack of safety has declined and not increased. I agree that much more needs to be done, but Lord Cullen made many proposals. We are taking them forward in consultation with the industry, which is the best way to do it.

Margaret Moran: Is the Prime Minister aware that, over the last few years, 15 children have been murdered as a result of courts granting contact to violent parents? Is he also aware that courts are continuing to grant unsupervised contact to schedule 1 offenders, resulting in violence and sometimes death to children? Will he ensure that we hold inquiries into such circumstances where there are domestic violence murders? Will he do everything he can to ensure that there is an amendment to the Children Act 1989 to protect our children from this kind of violence in future?

Tony Blair: First, on the specific point about the amendment to the legislation, we will give serious consideration to the point that my hon. Friend makes. Secondly, I should say that there is an interdepartmental ministerial group specifically to look at how we co-ordinate work in this area and she will be aware that the Government have tightened legislation in recent years.

Julian Brazier: The Government's solution to the desperate overcrowding in east Kent hospitals is a £200 million investment programme. Does the Prime Minister understand that 15,000 people have marched against the proposed plan, that consultants are saying that it is medically unsafe and that the Royal College of Nursing has come out against it? Will he give us some extra beds for patients now, or will he engage in this ridiculous and extravagant exercise in empire-building; the kind of empire on which the sun never shines?

Tony Blair: The decisions on the reconfiguration of the service in east Kent, which were taken by the health authority board, will be referred to Ministers after proper consultation. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken in account. In relation to the service as a whole, we recognise that there have been real and specific problems in east Kent but, as he has just implied, we are putting millions of additional investment into the services. It will take some time for that investment to go through, but in terms of accident and emergency, the numbers of beds and cancer services in east Kent, we are making additional investment available. As for the reconfiguration of those services, that is a decision by the health authority board and Ministers will consider it after due consultation.

Stephen Ladyman: When the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked his question, he forgot to remind my right hon. Friend of the tens of millions of pounds already spent on modernising east Kent hospitals, the £2 million accident and emergency modernisation programme at Margate that is just completed and the £180 million that is about to be spent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that still much more needs to be done in the NHS? Does he share my concerns about waiting times for heart patients? What does he intend to do about that?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right that there is a great deal more to do, but the answer to the problems of waiting times or the additional numbers of consultants and nurses needed in the health service cannot be to cut the investment going to the health service, which is the position of the Conservative party.
	On cardiac services, as a result of the additional funding that the Secretary of State for Health has announced today, we will be able to cut substantially cardiac waiting times. That is in addition to increasing by 45 or 50 per cent. the number of cardiologists within the NHS. These are important changes and investments, and the Government will carry on making necessary investments in the NHS. The single biggest dividing line in the House lies between Labour, which wants investment in public service, and the Conservatives, who are against it.

John Randall: The Prime Minister will doubtless recall the promise made in the 1997 Labour party manifesto to end waiting for cancer treatment. When will he fulfil that promise?

Tony Blair: The latest figures indicate that referrals for cancer treatment within two weeks have risen from just over 60 per cent. when we came to power to more than 90 per cent. now. As a result of additional investment, not only in increasing the number of cancer specialists but in extra cancer equipment throughout the NHS, there is no doubt that cancer services have been enabled to improve.
	The hon. Gentleman's question brings us back to what I have already said. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not accept that, they do not accept the reality of their position. After years of cuts in beds, cuts in training places and cuts in the number of nurses, the Government are investing in the national health service.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Tony Blair: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that took place in Coolum, in Queensland, Australia, from 1 to 4 March. I pay warm tribute to Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Government for the excellent arrangements for the meeting, and to John Howard personally for his patient and skilful chairmanship.
	I also want to record how much the presence of Her Majesty the Queen meant to all the Heads of Government in this, her jubilee year. It provided an opportunity for us all to reflect on her remarkable contribution to the Commonwealth over the past 50 years. I shall be pleased to join Her Majesty for the observance service to celebrate Commonwealth day on Monday 11 March.
	The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was due to take place last autumn. It was postponed because of the atrocious terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It was therefore entirely fitting that one of the major items of business at this week's meeting was the adoption of a Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism. That focuses on how to help member states, particularly smaller states, to fulfil their international obligations in fighting terrorism, including those provided for by United Nations Security Council resolution 1373.
	The Commonwealth Heads of Government also adopted the report of the high-level review group established at the previous Heads of Government meeting in Durban in 1999. That report broadens the remit of the Commonwealth's ministerial-level watchdog, the Commonwealth ministerial action group, beyond the overthrow of democratically elected governments so that it will in future be able to examine crises other than those provoked by a coup d'état. It strengthens the good offices role of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, and streamlines the secretariat's structure.
	The Heads of Government also established a high-level expert group to report on globalisation to the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. The high-level group report and the plan on terrorism are covered in the Coolum declaration, which was agreed by Heads of Government at the conference. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
	Those useful developments strengthen the Commonwealth as an organisation committed to promoting democracy and good governance, economic development, and tolerance and racial harmony among its members. It is all the more deplorable therefore that one of those members, Zimbabwe, should have a President and a Government who are so clearly violating those core Commonwealth values.
	The current crisis in Zimbabwe was extensively discussed. The violence and intimidation unleashed by President Mugabe in his desperation to prevent an Opposition victory in next weekend's presidential elections is totally unacceptable. So is the way in which he made it impossible for European Union observers to monitor next weekend's elections, obliging them to withdraw from Zimbabwe so that they could not document the abuses of the election campaign. There is no doubt about those abuses: those who are witnessing the campaign and who are still in Zimbabwe, detail horrific acts of violence and intimidation.
	President Mugabe pretends that the current crisis has been prompted by the issue of land reform rather than by his determination to stay in power no matter what the verdict of the electorate. That is nothing more than a pretext. Successive British Governments have made clear their commitment to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated that commitment at the Abuja meeting in Nigeria last September. Indeed, since independence Britain has provided over £40 million specifically for land reform, and over £0.5 billion in development assistance.
	However, our efforts, and those of the wider international community—including the United Nations Development Programme—have been thwarted by the political intransigence, and indeed corruption, of President Mugabe and his Government. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: if President Mugabe had wanted an orderly and just land reform programme at any stage in the past few years, we would have been keen to work with him. He did not. Instead he has used the land reform issue as an excuse for undermining Zimbabwean democracy; and more than this, the actions have now provoked a grave economic crisis in a country that has the potential to be rich and successful. This is a tragedy for all Zimbabwe's people. The victims of Mr. Mugabe are not primarily white; they are the ordinary black citizens fed up with years of decline and corruption.
	President Mugabe's behaviour was denounced by a very large number of Commonwealth countries at Coolum. Again we should make it clear that this included outspoken and courageous condemnation by African leaders who understand very well that the damage that President Mugabe is doing harms not only Zimbabwe but Africa as a whole. Despite President Mugabe's mob propaganda, this is not an issue that divides the Commonwealth on racial lines—not one that divides Africa from the other Commonwealth members.
	Although there was a strong current of criticism running at Coolum, decisions need to be unanimous at the Heads of Government meeting, and in a body representing more than 50 separate nations there was no realistic prospect of a consensus for suspending Zimbabwe from Commonwealth membership in advance of the elections this coming weekend. But we did agree a statement on Zimbabwe that expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the current election campaign, and called for free and fair elections. That statement makes provision for Zimbabwe's suspension, if the report of the Commonwealth observers currently in Zimbabwe is adverse.
	If the observers' report does indeed find widespread evidence of intimidation and violence, the fudging will have to stop. The credibility of the Commonwealth itself is at stake. The procedures laid down in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth action programme are clear, and action must follow, up to and including suspension. Let me add that it is a remarkable tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe that the Opposition retain even a chance of winning those elections at all. Again, let us be clear: if they do win, President Mugabe must accept the result and hand over power.
	The Coolum meeting provided an opportunity for me to meet a number of African leaders to discuss the New Partnership for African Development. We need to work with Africa, through the G8 and through a wide range of international organisations, to grasp this opportunity for a new start, and new hope for Africa. On aid, trade and conflict I believe that we have a real chance for progress, with commitment and leadership on both sides. We will continue to make that a major priority of British policy.
	Coolum also allowed me to meet the Heads of Government of Commonwealth Caribbean countries. We discussed ways of developing the United Kingdom's relations with them, and ways of helping them to confront the challenges that they face, particularly in countering drugs and terrorism, and in the economic and trade fields. There will be a further opportunity to develop that dialogue at the meeting of the UK/Caribbean Forum in Georgetown, Guyana, next month.
	Finally, I co-hosted with John Howard the Commonwealth sports lunch, where we looked forward to the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer and then in Melbourne in 2006.
	I wish to conclude with thanks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the work that he did in preparing for the Coolum meeting, particularly in the Commonwealth ministerial action group. It was a great sadness that, for personal reasons, he was unable to attend the meeting itself, but I wish also to record my thanks to my noble Friend Baroness Amos for the valuable role that she played at Coolum.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister at the outset in recording my pleasure at the presence of Her Majesty at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting during her jubilee year? As the Prime Minister so rightly said, the leadership and service that she has given to the Commonwealth over the last 50 years is admired and respected by very many people around the globe, and I, like him, look forward to the observance service on 11 March. I also welcome the adoption of the action plan on terrorism, and that part of the Coolum communiqué that reaffirms the principles of working to reduce poverty through the Commonwealth institutions.
	However, no hon. Member can be satisfied with the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting regarding Zimbabwe. What the Prime Minister said in condemning Mr. Mugabe is quite right, and I associate myself with all those statements criticising him and accusing him of all the things that he has done. This is not about black versus white in Zimbabwe, and it never has been; it is about everyone in Zimbabwe suffering under a tyrant who has thrown out the rule of law and democracy. However, the suggestion that the Commonwealth might in due course merely voice "collective disapproval" at the actions of the Zimbabwe Government is only the latest in a litany of laughable and inadequate responses that have too often let Mr. Mugabe off the hook.
	Last October, the Prime Minister publicly told his party that there must be "no tolerance" of
	"the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
	Those were rightly tough words, yet, sadly, the Government have in their actions too often appeared to tolerate his activities. The Abuja agreement did nothing to stop the violence and intimidation practised by Mr. Mugabe's regime, yet it was greeted by the Foreign Secretary as "a positive step forward" and, despite evidence that Mr. Mugabe was ignoring it throughout, no action was taken.
	We were not alone in voicing our concerns. In September last year, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai—a very brave man—called for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth if Mugabe breached the law on land reform. The British Government never publicly set any such benchmark. In fact, it was a further three months before the Commonwealth declared that the situation in Zimbabwe was a "serious and persistent violation" of its fundamental principles.
	Why did it then take the Foreign Secretary and the Government another three weeks after that long delay finally to recommend that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth? In the four months taken to get to that point, Mr. Mugabe's regime of terror continued unabated and very well reported, yet my concern was that the Government dithered: they seemed to hide behind the claim to be working within the European Union, yet Europe, too, was dragging its feet.
	It was not until 28 January—only five weeks ago—that the Foreign Secretary was able to say that the EU's position on sanctions was "clear, unambiguous and unanimous". Even then, it took another three weeks and the expulsion of the head of the EU observer mission for sanctions to be imposed. People such as Mr. Mugabe clearly feed off that kind of indecisiveness. It is no wonder that—despite the Prime Minister's best efforts, which we support, in Brisbane—he could not persuade his Commonwealth colleagues to take action against Zimbabwe. As far as they were concerned, the British Government only decided to support suspension just under two months ago.
	It could all have been very different. If there had been real leadership throughout, from whatever source, the Commonwealth would have sent a much stronger message, and one that we would have done well to learn.
	The lesson is that we must not repeat that failure, and the Prime Minister therefore needs to answer some important, key questions about the future action that the Commonwealth may or may not take.
	First, will the Prime Minister guarantee Morgan Tsvangirai the full support of the British Government—whether he wins or loses—not just now, but in the difficult months ahead? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the transparency of Sunday's election will be judged on the criteria laid down by the Southern African Development Community in March last year? Thirdly, does he agree that, if those forces opposed to democracy continue their terrible destruction of Zimbabwe, an international coalition composed of the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth should take all necessary steps to secure a safe future for Zimbabwe?
	The Commonwealth's statements on Zimbabwe and Mugabe this past weekend have been weak and ineffectual, and we must ensure that a much stronger and clearer message goes out to Zimbabwe. I served in Zimbabwe when we brought about the transition to the current Government back in 1979–80—so I need no sedentary lectures from Labour Members, who have done nothing but mouth off—and the high hopes of those days are now being destroyed. The Government's policy and those of the Commonwealth now read like a text book on how not to deal with a tyrant. The Government talk a lot about leading in Europe and leading in the Commonwealth. They have not yet done so—perhaps now is the time for them to pull this situation back before it is too late.

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has the ability to exploit any situation to make absurd points. The idea that the problem in Zimbabwe is a result either of the Government's failure to condemn Mr. Mugabe, whom we have condemned right from the very beginning, or, even more absurdly, of the European Union, which I fear marks a return to the Conservative party's obsession with the European Union, is ridiculous. The truth is that we have made it clear throughout that we wholly condemn Mr. Mugabe. However, decisions have to be unanimous in order to get action through the Commonwealth at the Heads of Government meeting. In other words, every country has to agree. There was never a realistic prospect of getting some of them to agree to sanctions now. The Government's position, however, has been utterly clear throughout.
	In respect of the three points the right hon. Gentleman demands we answer, we have already done so many, many times. Yes, of course it is the case that if the observers' report indicates that the election has been rife with violence and intimidation—as I am sure it will, given the emerging evidence—suspension should follow under the criteria agreed by the Commonwealth. There is no question in those circumstances of collective disapproval alone being satisfactory. However, that is again something that Britain alone cannot decide. With the greatest of respect, when we analyse what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do, we have already done it. The idea that, by some miraculous power, he would have managed to persuade all the Heads of the Commonwealth to go along with something heavier stretches his credibility a little beyond what it will bear.
	In respect of the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raises, it is important that we ensure that firm action follows. The one part of the Commonwealth statement that I can say I am happy with is the notion that a mechanism should exist that depends not on all 50 members of the Commonwealth, but on the past, present and future Chairmen of the Commonwealth Heads of Government who will take a decision on the basis of the recommendation of the Secretary-General. That gives us a far more streamlined way in which to reach a quick decision. I very much hope that they come to the right decision. It is at least a small step forward, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge it.

Charles Kennedy: In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, hon. Members should acknowledge that it is an unusually strong statement for any Prime Minister who has returned from such an international summit meeting to make to the House of Commons, and deservedly so given the circumstances and the primary topic of international concern and discussion. In recognising that fact, I think the Prime Minister would concur that the one thing the House of Commons, as much as the Government, can do at this juncture is to speak with a united voice on Zimbabwe and the international implications. Given that the Conservative party lacks the self-confidence to believe that it could persuade a dozen and a few more members of the European Union, is it not bizarre that it should think that it could have flown to Australia to dictate the passage of actions to dozens of members of the Commonwealth?
	If the bad news from Zimbabwe worsens over the next few days as we witness the conduct of the elections and their outcome, will the Prime Minister confirm that our country will take a lead on a Commonwealth basis to ensure that suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth, which we would all have preferred to happen at this stage, proceeds as fast as is politically possible? I hope that he can reassure us on that. If the situation continues to deteriorate and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has to deal with the migration of refugees across borders into neighbouring countries, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will give its full support to whatever endeavours may have to be anticipated and dealt with, although of course we hope that they will not arise?
	Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that in the court of public opinion, where Robert Mugabe is concerned, it is one thing for politicians to disagree, but when any head of state has moved to the extent that broadcasters and journalists, including those from the BBC—some of the most impartial and authoritative journalists in the world—are excluded or thrown out of a country, that in itself is an admission of guilt?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the most eccentric happenings at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was the sight of the Information Minister of Zimbabwe coming to Australia to talk to the BBC, which had of course been thrown out of Zimbabwe during its coverage of the election.
	Of course we will do our very best to secure the right outcome in light of the Commonwealth observers' report. I should just add to what I said a moment ago that all three members of the group that will take the decision, on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Secretary- General, have made it clear that if the observers do detail violence and intimidation, they will take the appropriate action. Giving that assurance is different from delivering on it, but we will do our best to hold people to that position.
	What the right hon. Gentleman said about refugees is true. There are already hundreds of thousands, if not more, Zimbabwean refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. One of the tragedies of what Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe is that the income of its people has literally halved in the past few years, but it is a potentially wealthy country. It could have been a leader in southern Africa, instead of which Mugabe has turned it into a country where industry feels uncomfortable, where people are in a state of oppression and where the economy is unable to function properly.

Tam Dalyell: In view of what the Prime Minister is reported to have said about Iraq to the Australian media, and following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) at Question Time, could he, at his convenience, glance at the report of this morning's Westminster Hall debate on military action against Iraq and reflect on whether he ought not to come and make a very full speech—as Prime Ministers used to do—on the Iraq situation before it is contemplated committing British troops? Is it not right that in a situation where there is, so to speak, an optional war, the House of Commons should have a formal endorsement by vote?

Tony Blair: As I pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time, we have not agreed any action in respect of Iraq at the moment, so it is important that before anyone takes a position condemning it or supporting it, we see what the Government propose we should do. On the point about coming to the House, most people would have to acknowledge that after 11 September, not only did I make several statements to the House, but so did other Ministers, and we have had no fewer than five different debates on the subject, so I really do not think that it can be said that we have been committing British forces without proper consultation with the House. When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Prime Minister take the earliest possible opportunity to impress on the Commonwealth Heads of Government that the partial attitude towards Mugabe shown by far too many of them undermines the respect and support, in this country and elsewhere, for the Commonwealth as an institution?

Tony Blair: It is correct that I found some of the contributions at the meeting hard to understand in light of what is happening. I believe that, especially when the whole world is trying to put together a partnership for Africa based on us providing more aid, better access to our markets and help with good governance, it is all the more right and appropriate that strong and good governance in Africa is upheld.
	The one qualification that I would make to that, however, is that there were reports that Africa en bloc was against strong action on Zimbabwe; that is not correct, and it is not fair to African countries. Many African leaders, including some from that region, spoke very strongly against what Mr. Mugabe is doing. There are those who feel that we should wait until the election until we make the decision to suspend. I can understand that, even though I do not agree with it. I think that it means that if the Commonwealth observers' report is adverse, there is an obligation on the Commonwealth to retain its credibility by acting against Mugabe.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us on the Labour Benches— I emphasise, the Labour Benches—who urged the strongest economic sanctions against the illegal regime in what was then Rhodesia need no lectures from anybody, certainly not Mugabe and his thugs, about racism? I speak as one who is perhaps not considered to be the biggest admirer of the EU, but is it not the case that if any EU member country had come anywhere near what Mugabe has done, that country would have been suspended very quickly? Perhaps the Commonwealth should learn from that.

Tony Blair: I agree entirely. In those circumstances, the EU would of course suspend a country. That is why it is all the more important that we ensure that the Commonwealth, if it is to retain its credibility, acts. However, to answer those shouting out from the Opposition Benches, that has to be done at 50 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The advantage of the mechanism that we have agreed is that because three countries will take the decision, we have a better chance of getting the right result.

Francis Maude: It is hard to disagree with a single word that the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe. He spoke out robustly. However, the train of events in Zimbabwe is not new: it is not a feature of the past few months, but has been going on for two years, since Mugabe lost his referendum in February 2000. Yes, it has become worse over that time, but there has been a consistent pattern of intimidation, brutality and subversion of the rule of law. In that time, some of us have called for targeted action against individuals—members of the gang of hoodlums who support Mugabe in office and in power and Mugabe himself—and for targeted sanctions, but we have been pushed away by the Government, the current Foreign Secretary and his predecessor. The only Minister who consistently spoke up robustly along those lines is the current Minister for Europe, who, as soon he did so, was slapped down and moved out of his job. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of all that is that when a dictator starts to behave in a tyrannical manner, robust action taken early on makes the difference? We should by now have learned that appeasing tyrants does not work.

Tony Blair: I simply disagree totally. The Government made their position on Mugabe plain right from the outset. Whether we act in the EU or in the Commonwealth, we have to get other countries to join us. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the issue was first raised a couple of years ago, close consultations took place with the opposition movement in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change, about the right response. The idea that we have not sought firm action against Mugabe is absurd, but we have to get that action agreed at European level and at Commonwealth level, and that is best done by working with other countries.

Michael Ancram: You dithered!

Tony Blair: In response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, may I say that the notion that the Conservative party, with its attitude towards Europe and the Commonwealth, could have got further is more than a little absurd?

Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's report that there was a discussion about Angola. Given the recent events affecting UNITA, can he assure us that that discussion was positive and that Angola's prospects are better than they have been in recent years?

Tony Blair: I think that that is true—there is a greater prospect of stability in Angola. That emphasises, as my right hon. Friend correctly identifies, the importance of ensuring that we establish proper systems of conflict resolution in Africa. The single biggest problem for countries in many parts of Africa is conflicts lasting for years that have made it absolutely impossible for those countries to develop properly. That is what we want to achieve as part of the deal for Africa at the G8 summit. Whether in Congo, Angola, Sudan or Somalia, there is a real prospect of getting the right conflict resolution systems in place so that stability can be restored. I believe that the situation in Angola today is more hopeful than it has been for some time.

Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, particularly the large section of it that referred to Zimbabwe. Does he agree that poverty in many central African countries is exacerbated by the chaos in Zimbabwe? Unfortunately, the Commonwealth monitors are not generating confidence among the opponents of Mr. Mugabe, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change. I receive e-mails by the day from Zimbabwe highlighting the monitors' inadequacy.
	I know that the Prime Minister must be careful in saying so, but does he agree that the Commonwealth has not enhanced its credibility by not taking a decision at least to suspend Zimbabwe? Is he not worried that after the election on Sunday, the votes will be counted by those who are in hock to Mr. Mugabe?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns about the way in which the poll will be conducted. I should have preferred the Commonwealth to go further. The real test of its credibility will come after the weekend's election. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that as a result of the instability in Zimbabwe, problems are being exported to other African countries in the region. That is, in my view, why it is all the more important that they speak out and speak up.

Peter Pike: I fully endorse everything that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon with regard to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Did the Commonwealth Heads of Government look at the situation in Pakistan, whose membership of the Commonwealth is suspended, giving due regard to what President Musharraf has boldly and courageously done about terrorism over the past few months and recognising that he is working towards achieving democracy later this year? Should not the Commonwealth be addressing what it can do to help Pakistan return to democracy and return to the Commonwealth, I hope later this year?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope very much that Pakistan keeps to the road map to democracy that was set out by President Musharraf last year. That is important, and I pay tribute to his leadership of his country over the past few months; the strong position that he has taken in respect of international terrorism; and his recent speech that takes on the extremists who would abuse the religion of Islam for the purposes of political extremism. I know that the Commonwealth will want to work with Pakistan to make sure that that road map to democracy is fulfilled and that Pakistan can come back as a full member of the Commonwealth.

Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister's persuasive powers have obviously not been enjoying success with the Commonwealth or, for that matter, with President Bush on steel. If President Mugabe rigs the elections or refuses to accept the result and executive action follows, as the Prime Minister indicates, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that action will be sustained by a consensus of Commonwealth heads of state?
	European Union sanctions have attempted to target leading figures in ZANU-PF so that they do not impact on ordinary people in Zimbabwe. Does the Prime Minister envisage any way of toughening up European Union action that will not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, whose conditions are fairly desperate already?

Tony Blair: We will certainly look at what further European action can follow, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important that that does not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. However, the benefit of the mechanism that we have outlined is that it restricts the decision making to the three countries, not the 50. If they make that recommendation, we will be able to sustain it. As I said earlier, that is the one point of hope to come out the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Win Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, the Government have responded largely along lines approved of by the Movement for Democratic Change? If the worst comes to the worst after this weekend, what, besides any action taken by the Commonwealth, may be done at a United Nations level to ensure that there is true democracy in Zimbabwe and that we set in train efforts to restore prosperity there?

Tony Blair: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. He is right. We have tried to maintain close contact with the Movement for Democratic Change in terms of what it is sensible for Britain to pursue. There are points in time—this is why I think that some of the remarks made by the Opposition are silly—at which Britain's role in Zimbabwe, if it is not handled with care, can help Mugabe rather than hinder him. We have been sensitive to that throughout. In respect of my hon. Friend's point about the United Nations, we would pursue that at every level and in every forum, but we will have to wait to determine the precise nature of that.

Cheryl Gillan: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the Opposition's view about Zimbabwe. His memory is not entirely accurate. Morgan Tsvangirai was calling for targeted sanctions long before a response came from the Government. Like the rest of us, the Prime Minister knows that it is not just Zimbabwe that is suffering from what is going on in that country; the surrounding countries are suffering too. If some miracle happens and Mugabe loses the election—as we all know he should if the election were free and fair—will the Prime Minister undertake to talk to all his colleagues in the Commonwealth and in the EU and put together a rapid package of aid so that we can get Zimbabwe back on its feet very quickly?

Tony Blair: Of course we will look at what we can do to assist Zimbabwe, at European level and in respect of the Heads of Government as well. With regard to the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, it is a feature of Opposition parties destined to remain Opposition parties for a long time that they seek to make political capital out of anything.

Paul Farrelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take action where we can against those friends of Mr. Mugabe who make violence and repression possible, not least arms dealers based here in the UK? Those include Mr. Mugabe's main supplier, Mr. John Bredenkamp, whose name I have brought to the attention of the House several times. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been pursuing investigations into that individual. Over several months, I am sorry to say, my questions to the Foreign Office in that respect have simply hit a brick wall. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work closely with the Department for International Development to do their utmost to close down the activities of those UK-based arms dealers?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will be in touch with him about that. My understanding is that the European Union has made it clear that the export of arms to Zimbabwe is unacceptable.

Crispin Blunt: Would not our country have more credibility countering the propaganda of the Zimbabwe Government Information Minister, Mr. Jonathan Moyo, if our Government Information and Communications Service and its officers and £150 million budget did not answer to the Prime Minister's political appointee, Mr. Alastair Campbell?

Tony Blair: It is extraordinary that on a serious subject for millions of people in Zimbabwe, and when it is obvious, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said a moment or two ago, that the best message to send out from the House is a united one, some parts of the Conservative party have done nothing today but try to make political capital out of the situation in Zimbabwe and suggest that there is some magic resolution of it that the Government could have secured. That is nonsense. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a disgrace. The whole House should be united in condemning it, and points such as those made by the hon. Gentleman only give succour to those who support the Mugabe regime.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us strongly support his comment in his statement that the fudging must stop? The indecision of the Commonwealth conference has left a dreadful stain on the Commonwealth which will last for a long time to come. On the assumption that the election on Sunday will almost certainly be violently rigged by Mugabe, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to ensure that smart sanctions are introduced as quickly as possible by as many countries that are our allies as possible?

Tony Blair: We will, of course, do everything we possibly can. On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the test for the Commonwealth will come once the election takes place. I should have preferred action to be taken before then, but that is the chance for the Commonwealth to show that the principles that it agreed—ironically, in Zimbabwe, at Harare—10 or so years ago will be maintained in this situation. The United States has already indicated the action that it will take, as has the European Union. We will fight for action at every international level.

David Burnside: The Prime Minister knows better than any of us how important international unity has been following the national unity in this House in the international fight against terrorism, whether through the UN, the Commonwealth or the EU. As the Prime Minister has recognised through his international travel that terrorism is terrorism wherever it comes from and wherever it takes place, whether the Twin Towers, Canary Wharf, the Baltic Exchange or Enniskillen, could he foresee a time when Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive and not convicted, would receive a national and international amnesty similar to the amnesty that he and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are about to announce in Northern Ireland?

Tony Blair: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, but the situation in Northern Ireland is different because a peace process is under way there. Whatever the difficulties, the hon. Gentleman would have to accept that the Belfast agreement has considerably improved the situation in Northern Ireland, whether with regard to jobs, investment or security, and it is important that we sustain that agreement. However, as I say, I understand why the hon. Gentleman expresses the views that he does.

Julie Kirkbride: If, as is widely expected, the outcome of this week's election in Zimbabwe is to unleash yet further violence against Mr. Mugabe's enemies, can the Prime Minister assure the House that every possible contingency plan has been taken to protect the lives of the 25,000 UK passport holders who at present reside there?

Tony Blair: We shall obviously do everything that we possibly can. Of course, we have given considerable thought to what we could do to protect the people there, but I very much hope that it will not come to that.

Norman Lamb: The Prime Minister was right to point out in his statement that, remarkably, it is still just possible that Mugabe could be toppled from power this weekend, such is the scale of his unpopularity there, as shown by what polling evidence there is. If that happens, unlikely as it may be, can the Prime Minister confirm that plans are in place to provide immediate assistance next week to help to stabilise the new President and the country and to help the reconstruction process get under way?

Tony Blair: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the Opposition were to win and the democratic will of the people were to prevail, we would do everything that we could to ensure that Zimbabwe was given the fresh start that it needs.

Graham Brady: The Prime Minister has said that his preference would be for action before the election on Sunday, not after. There is one thing that he could do that would send a clear signal now. Will he make it clear today that if Mugabe remains in office after Sunday, Zimbabwe will not be welcome at the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer?

Tony Blair: I shall certainly consult on that in the light of what happens at the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: The next business was to be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the statement reached the Opposition only 10 minutes ago, so in order to allow the Opposition time to study the statement I shall take the ten-minute Bill first.

Criminal Evidence (Prohibition of Sale)

Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings.
	In 1994, a series of murders committed over a number of years came to light in my constituency of Gloucester. During that time, the city became the focus for the country's, and indeed the world's, media. It soon became apparent that 25 Cromwell street had been the venue for some of the most appalling acts of sexual abuse, torture and mass murder that Britain has ever seen. During a number of agonising weeks, many people discovered the fate of their missing loved ones. It was an extremely painful time for many people, and how victims' relatives and the surviving victims can even begin to rebuild their lives is almost beyond my comprehension. I know that many have done so, however, as many of them reside in my constituency. I am introducing this Bill because their healing process was to be rudely interrupted.
	In 1996, Fred West committed suicide in jail while still awaiting trial. He died intestate and the Official Solicitor made a deal with a television company for the documentary television and video rights to the archive material from his estate. That evidence included recorded interviews that the police had conducted with West, West's personal photographs, home video footage and witness testimonies—evidence that would have been covered by Crown copyright had West not committed suicide pre-trial. Essentially, all the evidence that the police had gathered during their investigations was being sold on by the Official Solicitor to a television company. That television company was the creative consortium working with Channel 5.
	When the police interview a suspect such as Fred West, they give the defence counsel copies of their evidence under the disclosure rule. They do not expect evidence for a court case then to be sold on to the media to produce a salacious television documentary. Channel 5 commissioned a programme on Fred West and broadcast not just transcripts of his confessions but his voice—he described his crimes in great detail. Unsurprisingly, the Gloucestershire constabulary was aghast. The victims, many of whom live in my constituency, turned to me because they could not believe that trial evidence could be traded in such a way.
	Prior to the broadcast, I wrote to or had meetings with representatives of the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Attorney-General to convey the concerns of the police and those of the victims and their families. The Attorney-General told me that an application for an injunction would not be successful, and that a court could not be expected to prevent a broadcast as it would contravene article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The police argued that taped interviews and other material were covered by Crown copyright and asked the Attorney-General to block that material being broadcast on the basis that not to do so would be a contempt of court. That request was turned down. The BSC and the ITC then told me that they could only act retrospectively—after the programme had been shown. Indeed, the Broadcasting Act 1990 explicitly excludes the possibility of the ITC being able to preview such a programme.
	By maximising the estate of Fred West in such a way, the Official Solicitor had made it impossible for the Government or the regulators—the ITC and the BSC—to prevent footage of a mass murderer talking about his crimes in his own voice from appearing on our screens.
	Channel 5 showed its documentary. Throughout the campaign to block the broadcast, Channel 5 consistently gave reassurances that the programme would be tasteful and predominantly investigative. Indeed, shortly before the broadcast, Channel 5's chief executive stated:
	"This documentary is of the highest possible calibre. It is not in any way salacious."
	None the less, the programme showed Fred West describing his crimes in great detail. It showed pictures of victims faded in and out against pictures of their skeletal remains, and it showed Rose West undressing in front of the camera and in bed with her clients
	Some may argue that censorship is an issue in this matter, and a reason to object to the Bill. However, it has never been my intention to prevent the making of a programme about Fred West. I do not have a problem with crime documentaries. Two other documentaries about Fred West are in the public domain at present. They were made with the co-operation of surviving victims, the police and people in the legal profession. My Bill would not prevent the media from covering or documenting such cases, but the sale of evidence and the screening of the film have significant implications for future police investigations.
	The police officer who led the investigation, former Detective Superintendent John Bennett, said on the eve of the Channel 5 broadcast:
	"Police promises of confidentiality are rendered useless if every tape and every piece of evidence can be turned over to TV companies on the whim of some legal bureaucrat."
	If this programme has set a precedent and more programmes of this nature are made, how long will it be before detained prisoners, aware that their confessions could soon be in every living room in the country, simply refuse to talk to the police? How long will it be before witnesses, who already face enormous difficulties in even talking about their experiences, are simply unable to open up to the police?
	Furthermore, once evidence is in the public domain, there is also the danger that convicted criminals will have easy access to witnesses' testimonies once they have served their sentences. How long will it be before a convicted criminal is able to access everything that a prosecution witness has said?
	This Bill does not introduce censorship. It does not undermine the media. However, it will ensure that, if surviving victims of crime or the families of murder victims object to the sale to the media of evidence that was meant for a trial, the Official Solicitor will have to seek permission from the Attorney-General.
	Fred West is dead. Through the sale of evidence from his trial by the Official Solicitor to the media, his surviving victims, many of whom are my constituents, have been tormented by him again. The police and the justice system have felt undermined. In similar cases up and down the land, that could happen again. This Bill can change that. It may be too late for some, but it is not too late for others
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Tom Watson, Ms Candy Atherton, John Mann, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. George Osborne, Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight, John Robertson and Valerie Davey.

Criminal Evidence (Prohibition of Sale)

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 109].

US Tariffs (Steel Imports)

Patricia Hewitt: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the announcement made last night by President Bush on his decision to impose a range of tariff measures that would severely restrict United States imports of steel products from the rest of the world. These measures will impose additional tariffs of between 8 and 30 per cent. on products that account for some three quarters of US steel imports. They will effectively close the American market to many products.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are extremely disappointed that President Bush has taken this action in the face of united international opinion. It is wholly unjustified at a time of falling American imports and rising prices. In our view and that of the European Commission, it is a clear breach of the United States WTO obligations. As well as having an international effect, steel import restrictions will raise costs for American industry to the detriment of consumers and the American manufacturing sector overall. Import restrictions will also only delay much-needed steel restructuring and hurt the American manufacturing sector just at a time when it appears to be rallying from the economic downturn.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and a number of other Ministers have been in frequent touch with the highest levels of the American Administration since last July, when the investigation by the US International Trade Commission was announced. That has continued throughout this week, when I have twice spoken with the American Commerce Secretary, Donald Evans. We have all made it very clear that measures restricting imports would be quite the wrong response to problems that are faced by parts of the American steel industry. We have also stressed to the American Administration that this is more than an issue between the European Union and the United States. The American action, in clear disregard of international opinion, risks undermining the good work that was done a few months ago to achieve the Doha launch of a new round of trade liberalisation. Why should developing countries commit to free and open markets when the United States closes its domestic market to address a problem that many see as largely of the American industry's own making?
	Of course, there are also real issues in the global steel trade market, including excess capacity and market- distorting subsidies, but they are best addressed multilaterally through the discussions that have been convened by the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development with our full support. Until now, those discussions have been making good progress, but although we hope that that effort can continue, the American action risks jeopardising that progress.
	Most of all, however, I am concerned—as every Member of this House will be—about the impact that these American measures will have on the British steel industry and steelworkers. We have one of the most efficient and productive steel-making industries and work forces in the world. That achievement has been a very painful process. Some 86,000 steel jobs have been lost in Britain since 1980 and some 10,000 have been lost in the past 18 months. All of us in this House know how tough that has been for workers who have lost their jobs and for their families and communities. We also know what the Government have done to see them through those difficult times. But the outcome is an efficient and productive industry that is able to compete effectively in world markets. We are not prepared to allow the United States to try to dump its problems on the rest of the world instead of facing up to the challenge of modernising and restructuring its industry.
	The steel curtain that the American Administration have brought down threatens our industry in two ways. First, it will directly affect some of our exports. Three quarters of all UK steel production is sold in the European Union, including the UK. About 9 per cent. of our total production is exported to the United States, and about 4 per cent. will be affected by the American tariffs. One especially significant UK export product—hot-rolled bar and cold-finished bar—will be subject to a prohibitive 30 per cent. tariff. Given the current state of our steel industry, that will have a devastating effect on many of our companies and their workers. Secondly—this is potentially even more damaging to UK and other European industry—there is the proposed 30 per cent. tariff on flat steel products. There is a serious risk that when the tariffs take effect on 20 March, the British and European markets will be flooded by exports of these products from third countries, mainly in the far east, that would otherwise have sold to the United States.
	We will stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustifiable and deeply regrettable action. I therefore fully support today's announcement by EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy that he will request immediate WTO dispute settlement action. Indeed, he has already done so. The first step in this is a 60-day consultation period with the United States, but, unless the American Administration are prepared to rethink their action, a WTO disputes panel will follow. Realistically, this case—which I am confident the European Union will win—will take some considerable time, perhaps up to two years. We are not prepared to stand by while British industry and jobs are put at risk for that length of time.
	I can confirm that Commissioner Lamy, to whom I have just spoken, is already considering appropriate and urgent action to be taken to safeguard British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. Indeed, we were already pressing the Commission last week to be prepared to take such action in the event that the Americans took protectionist measures of this magnitude.
	Let me stress that safeguard action is allowable under WTO rules, where it is intended to protect countries from surges in imports that cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury. That does not mean that we are simply copying the American actions of which we are so rightly critical. We would much prefer not to have to take any action. Our trade policy is to promote open and fair global markets, but, in circumstances in which the British and European marketplace could be flooded by steel imports as a result of American action, we are forced to consider appropriate and proportionate action to protect our own industry and its work force.
	I very much regret being forced into safeguard action. This would be the first time that any safeguard action had been taken by the European Union since the present regulations came into effect eight years ago. I particularly regret that it is the United States that will have prompted this action. Only four months ago, we were working closely with America, and with developing countries, to launch a new round of world trade negotiations. We will continue to work for free and fair trade around the world, because it is in all our interests—those of the developed countries and the developing countries alike—to achieve that. We will also continue to stand up for the interests of the British economy and British workers at home and abroad.

John Whittingdale: Although I extend the usual thanks to the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance, may I express regret that she did not see fit to apologise for the fact that it did not arrive until 10 minutes before the Prime Minister sat down? May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to convey my thanks to Mr. Speaker for making it clear, by bringing forward the ten-minute Bill, that that kind of discourtesy is unacceptable to the House?
	Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House to make this statement, in contrast to her failure even to attend the debate that took place here on this issue last night. First, I would like to make it clear that the Conservatives join the Government in condemning the action taken by the United States Administration. The import tariffs that have been announced will do nothing to help the steel companies in the United States that are suffering from competition from more efficient producers at home, and they will also push up raw material costs for many more American companies that use steel. However, although this action may prove damaging to the American economy, there is no doubt that the effect on the steel industry in this country will be devastating, putting at risk yet more jobs, on top of the thousands of redundancies that have occurred in the last two years.
	We therefore support the action taken by the European Union to lodge an immediate complaint with the World Trade Organisation, which must be the right place to resolve disputes of this kind. Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is right to take action to protect the steel industry from a further flood of cheap imports that have been displaced from American markets, it would be entirely wrong for us now to impose retaliatory measures that could lead to an escalating trade war? Will she remind President Bush of the commitments that he has made in the past to the cause of free trade?
	I join the right hon. Lady in expressing great concern that this latest action might put in jeopardy the achievement of a new world trade agreement, after the encouraging start that was made at Doha. However, although she is right to say that this matter will be dealt with by the WTO, she is also correct to say that we simply cannot afford to wait the two years that it usually takes for that organisation to reach a judgment. Will she therefore make every effort to ensure that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible, and, even at this eleventh hour, press the United States Government to hold back from implementation of the tariffs? If that cannot be achieved, we will reluctantly support the taking of safeguard action, but will she confirm that that action will be measured and permissible under WTO rules?
	Will the Secretary of State explain why, during the many conversations that have taken place between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the past six months, the Prime Minister did not raise this matter with the President until last week? It has been clear since July, as she said, that the American Government intended to take this action, yet it was seven months before the Prime Minister wrote to President Bush to press him to reconsider.
	Is the Secretary of State aware of the glaring contrast between the lack of urgency shown by the Prime Minister in defending the steel industry in this country, and the alacrity with which he was willing to write to the Romanian Prime Minister to promote the interests of an overseas company which happens to be owned by a major donor to the Labour party? Is she aware of the anger felt today by steelworkers in Britain about the fact that the Government have been helping Mr. Mittal, a foreign- based competitor who has been actively campaigning against British interests by giving $600,000 to the campaign that is lobbying for tariffs in the United States?
	On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State tried to claim that the American subsidiary of Corus had also supported that campaign. Does she now accept that that is completely untrue? Does she accept that the president of Corus Tuscaloosa wrote to the American Iron and Steel Institute making it clear that the firm was totally opposed to the introduction of tariffs, and would not support the AISI in the matter?
	Is this not another instance in which the Government's attempt to justify their actions has been shown to be wholly incredible and based on a complete distortion of the facts? Will the Secretary of State therefore apologise to Corus, and to all who work in the steel industry in this country, for the support that her Government have given to a company whose actions may directly contribute to the loss of their own jobs?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course I regret the fact that my office was unable to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of my statement any earlier this afternoon, but I know he will understand that my first priority was to ensure that we understood precisely the details of what the American Administration are proposing, how that would affect our industry and how we could best deal with the situation. As for yesterday's debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy was present throughout.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the action that we and the European Union are already taking in response to the American action. There will be no tit-for-tat retaliation. We will not respond to the American Administration's flouting of the WTO rules by flouting them ourselves. We will of course continue to press the American Administration, even now, to back off from the actions that they have announced, just as we will continue to press for exemptions of products that are of particular significance to the British steel industry. We will, however, also start urgent discussions with the European Commission and our European colleagues to ensure that we do, if necessary, take the appropriate safeguard action—as permitted by the WTO rules—to protect our industry and our workers from a flood of imports.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when the issue was pressed with the American Administration. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear this afternoon, I first raised it at senior Administration levels last July. It was not at all obvious at that point that the Administration would pursue this course, and for many months—through me, through other Ministers and through the embassy—we continued to try to persuade the Administration that they should not risk the consequences of this retreat into protectionism. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon, when it became more likely that the Administration would take this action, he raised the matter directly with the President.
	On the enormous pressure that trade unions and trade associations in the United States have put on the American Government, all companies operating in the American steel sector are in fact members of the trade associations that lobbied for those tariffs. Indeed, I made precisely that point this morning. Corus and Corus UK in particular have made it very clear that they are against that action.
	We hear synthetic anger from the Opposition about donations and job losses in the steel industry, but they did not care about such losses when they were in government and devastating the British steel industry. Let me make the matter clear once again: donations to political parties have nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. At any rate, they have nothing whatsoever to do with our Government's policy. We have no idea what influence political donations had on the policy of the previous Conservative Government, for the simple reason that they and the Conservative party flatly refused to publish any information on donations, whether British or foreign. We will therefore take no lessons from Conservatives on party political funding. It is this Government who have made party political donations transparent.
	We will continue to support the Romanian Government's efforts to open up their economy and modernise their industry because it is in Britain's interest for Romania and other candidate countries to join the European Union and become more prosperous themselves. I suspect, however, that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is unaware that America has exempted Romania and the other candidate countries from those tariffs precisely because their exports to the United States—like those to the European Union—are too small to be of any significance.

Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no winners in a trade war involving the imposition of tariffs, and that we must try as quickly as possible to stop it? Let us not forget that there are 30 days in which a great deal of work can be done. I urge her to ensure that the European Union carries a big stick, and wields it if necessary. In circumstances such as this, the Americans must be made to understand that we are not a soft touch, and that the WTO will come down on them like a ton of bricks. It will not be the workers of Ohio or West Virginia who will benefit from such action.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union will be a soft touch on this matter. We have supported the strengthening of the WTO, and we believe in a proper framework of rules for free and fair trade, and in the use of WTO procedures when concerns exist about imports. We completely reject the actions of the American Administration in flouting WTO rules. They have put at risk a new round of trade liberalisation, which, if successful, could benefit the entire global economy. We will stand up vigorously for the interests of our workers and companies.

Vincent Cable: I echo the comments of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the American action. It was indeed reckless and stupid in economic terms, and it threatens to contaminate the international trade negotiating process. The Americans are sending the message, "Don't do as we do, do as we say." That combination of hypocrisy and bullying will do much damage to international trade.
	However, I want to part company with the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman on the issue of retaliation, and in that regard I totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill).
	If the 30-day period expires without any sign of reasonableness from the American Administration, is the Secretary of State aware that under the article 19 action, which the Americans have taken—so-called selective safeguard action—it would be entirely legitimate for countries damaged by that process to take retaliatory action? She has seen the impact of smart sanctions from the US in the form of the so-called carousel that they operated in the banana dispute, so I wonder why she and the EU are not preparing a list of comparable sanctions to take against specific American targets, if they do not back down in this dispute.
	I also part company with the Secretary of State and with the Conservative spokesman—

Bob Spink: The Opposition.

Vincent Cable: Yes, I part company from both of them on the issue of safeguard action. Will she accept on reflection that that is potentially a dangerous and counterproductive approach? Introducing safeguard action against all steel coming into the EU would do nothing to hurt the US, and would penalise steel-using industries in Britain, which would create unemployment because they are more labour intensive than the steel industry. It would be a reflex action that would be economically damaging.
	The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that the Americans had exempted east European products from their action. Would that exemption also apply to the EU safeguard action, because the east European countries are directly in the line of fire? The Secretary of State may recall that the Sidex plant is underwritten by a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development loan, on the basis that eastern European producers will continue to have access to the European market. Can she confirm that she has checked out that point?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the stance that we have taken, but I confirm again that, unlike the American Administration, we will act in conformity with the WTO rules. The hon. Gentleman may recall that at the time that the American Administration were engaged in carousel retaliation we strongly expressed the view that that retaliatory action was contrary to the WTO rules. We will act within those rules, which explicitly allow countries to take action to protect their markets against an unforeseen and sudden surge in imports. It is ironic, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that President Bush has relied on the same clause in an attempt to justify his action, when of course steel imports into the US fell by 21 per cent. last year and are considerably lower than they were even four years ago.
	We will of course look in detail at the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about the precise nature of the safeguard action that we will be forced to take if the Americans decide to persist in this action. At this stage, before we have had detailed discussions with the European Commission and other European member states, it is too early to say exactly what form that safeguard action will take.

Jack Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the nature of the anger from the Conservatives, real and genuine anger will be felt in steel-making communities in Britain at the American action? Is not it insufficient to express regret at the American action, which is intolerable in the circumstances? Is not it dishonest of the American leadership to call for more open markets and more free trade while, at the same time, cynically resorting to classical protectionism of its industries, and not for the first time in recent years? Should not we therefore use every weapon at our disposal under the WTO rules to protect European and other continental markets that will be affected by that disgraceful action, and at the same time, search quickly for actions that we can legitimately direct against the US, while talks with them continue? I hope that my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that that is exactly what British workers and their families will expect us to do.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the enormous anger that is felt today in the steel communities throughout our country. Their anger is justified; they are right to be angry about the action that the American Administration will take.
	It is a tragedy that the American Administration, who played such a crucial role in securing the launch of the Doha development round and a new round of world trade negotiations, and signed up to negotiations that are designed to slash tariffs and import quotas around the world, have resorted to naked protectionism with no justification or legal basis.
	I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's points about the need for action that is directed against America. I stress again that we shall consider what action to take, but will act within World Trade Organisation rules. That is in the interests of our country, of free and fair world trade and of the developing as well as the developed world.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to speak gently but firmly to President Bush, and to tell him that many friends and admirers of America, who strongly supported the way in which the Government stood by our ally in recent months, will perceive the cynical and appalling action that we are discussing in the context of British-American relations? They will not regard that action as proper treatment of America's foremost ally, with which it always claims a special relationship.

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will doubtless express his disappointment and views on the action directly to President Bush. However, it is important to understand that there is no connection between the action on steel and the global coalition against terrorism. We stand with the Americans and many other countries around the world in the global coalition against terrorism because that is the right thing to do and it is in our interests to do so. In the same way, we will stand with our steelworkers and steel producers against the American Administration, who have taken such completely unjustified action, because the Americans are wrong about that matter.

Tam Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Americans will take a blind bit of notice of what she does?

Ashok Kumar: They should.

Tam Dalyell: Of course they should. I believe that my right hon. Friend is wrong and that the Americans will not take any notice unless we link the global connections with what has happened to the steel industry. Should not we tell the Americans that we are not with them in their proposals on, for example, Iraq?

Patricia Hewitt: Although I understand the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings on the matter, he is wrong to try to link the deeply unfortunate action on the steel industry with other foreign policy matters, which the Government should and will judge on their merit.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I tell the right hon. Lady that the anger on our Benches today, yesterday and the day before is anything but synthetic? Will she confirm a couple of small points? First, when did the Prime Minister become involved? There is an impression that that happened last Thursday—a bit late in the day. Secondly, when will she meet Pascal Lamy to discuss the way forward? Will she keep the House updated every week or 10 days about what is happening? The UK steel industry is going down the tubes.

Patricia Hewitt: Of course I shall continue to keep hon. Members informed about the action that we are taking. I spoke to Commissioner Lamy a few minutes before making the statement to the House this afternoon. There will be meetings and further telephone calls between officials and Ministers in the next few days and weeks as we decide on the appropriate and lawful action to take. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to support the interests of British steelworkers.

Hywel Francis: I thank the Secretary of State for her unequivocal and clear statement of support for the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Steelworkers in my constituency appreciate the Government's work on the matter.
	Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the safeguards that she has described will be introduced immediately? That will reassure steelworkers and their communities throughout the United Kingdom and the new all-party group on steel.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I very much appreciate the work of the new all-party parliamentary group on steel, with which I will continue to work closely.

Andrew MacKay: As it is now clear from the letter published by the American chairman of Corus that the Secretary of State misled the British public on the "Today" programme this morning and has slurred Corus, will she now apologise? On three occasions, she has failed to answer a simple question, which is this; when did the Prime Minister first get involved in making representations to the American Administration and the President on this unfortunate matter?

Patricia Hewitt: The statements that I made on the "Today" programme this morning and in other interviews during the day were, like the statement I made this afternoon, all factually accurate. I briefed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the situation in July last year. He has remained closely involved and recently raised the issue personally with President Bush.

Ian Cawsey: In the north Lincolnshire area that I represent alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), we have seen tremendous changes in the steel industry. Back in 1979, there were more than 22,000 people on the works; there are now fewer than 4,000. Those steelworkers have taken those changes on the chin every time because they have been told that they would secure a long-term future for UK steel. This ludicrous decision from the American Government once again puts their jobs in jeopardy. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at a UK, EU and worldwide level she will do everything she can to get assistance for the industry and, moreover, that she will base all her decisions on the simple criterion of protecting British steelworkers' jobs?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and of course I can give him that assurance.

Tim Boswell: I very much hope that the Secretary of State does not feel that our anger at the loss of British steel-making jobs would be, to use her word, "synthetic". Is it her intention to approach the European Commission with a view to exempting from the safeguard procedure the steel industry of Romania?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already told the House that steel exports from the candidate countries have been exempted by the American Administration from their proposed tariffs. The reason for that is simple; it is because the exports from all those candidate countries are so small, whether those are exports to America or to the EU. The threat of diversion of imports, which is what we are concerned about, arises in the case of countries to whom the Americans are applying the tariffs, not the countries to whom they are not applying the tariffs. It will be in that context that we will consider the appropriate and lawful action that we will take through safeguard measures to protect our own steel industry and workers.

Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend reject at very short order the proposal from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, which is that she should, in effect, write off the UK steel industry? Is she aware that the determination that she has expressed on behalf of the Government and the EU to act urgently to challenge the legitimacy of American actions in the WTO and to prevent dumping in Europe of steel displaced from the market to the USA will be very much welcomed in steel-making communities in south-east Wales, where it is understood—in a way that the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru seem entirely unable to grasp—that the policy of the Government to assist Romania to prepare its steel industry to operate within the rules of the EU so far from being detrimental to the interests of the British steel industry, will be beneficial to it, in that it will bring to an end subsidies and unfair trading practices in that quarter?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend is standing up for the interests of the steelworkers whom he represents. We will of course do all we can and will work extremely closely with our European allies to ensure that we protect as far as possible his constituents and other steelworkers around the country against an utterly unjustified and unlawful action.

John Greenway: It might surprise the right hon. Lady and the House to hear me say that the steel industry is hugely important to Ryedale. Some of our major employers and manufacturers are among the biggest customers for steel made in the United Kingdom. In particular, Ward Building Components, which is part of the Kingspan group, is important given its purchase of steel manufactured in Wales. The Portakabin and Portastore factories on the outskirts of York also purchase huge amounts of steel. Those companies need a consistent supply of high-quality steel at competitive prices.
	The market has already been destabilised over the past two or three years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) said. I foresee the situation becoming worse. We risk the loss of jobs both in steel manufacture and in firms that use steel as a major component of their manufacturing processes. The Secretary of State said that she will consider safeguard action that may cause serious injury. In doing so, will she keep in mind the serious injury that may be caused to companies that rely on the supply of steel?

Patricia Hewitt: Safeguard action under the WTO rules is designed to deal with a flood of imports that would cause serious injury. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern, however, about the impact on our manufacturing industry of destabilisation in the steel market. Our steel industry includes some of the most productive steel companies in the world and companies at the leading edge of creating high value-added and innovative steel products of enormous importance to manufacturing industry.
	The irony of what the Americans have done is that, by effectively banning from their market the high value- added products in which Britain and other European countries excel, they will damage their own steel industry, the restructuring of which will be delayed, and parts of their manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry. I hope, even at this late hour, that the serious implications for the American manufacturing sector might persuade the American Administration to moderate the stance that they took last night.

Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend tell President Bush that his draconian measure is a foolish and stupid idea that should be buried immediately? There is a great deal of anger in the House and in our constituencies. I represent a steel constituency that has lost several thousand jobs in the past year. I associate myself strongly with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that our people seek strong action and want their jobs to be defended. Now that Turkey and South Korea may dump their steel over-capacity not on America but on this country, what action will my right hon. Friend take?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of his constituents who work in the steel industry. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the threat to their jobs posed by the diversion of imports from countries such as Turkey and Korea, which will be directly affected by the tariffs that the American Administration propose to impose. That is precisely why, with Commissioner Lamy and colleagues in our fellow European member states, we seek to take safeguard action to protect my hon. Friend's constituents and other steelworkers against a flood of imports from countries locked out of the American market.

Gregory Barker: Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly when she and the Prime Minister first became aware that Mr. Mittal was funding the protectionist lobby to the tune of $600,000? In light of the success of that lobby, will she and her colleagues take the only honourable course of action available to them and return the £125,000 that they took from Mr. Mittal?

Patricia Hewitt: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me to do anything at all to help steelworkers in this country. That is a mark of the nature of his interest in the subject. It is a trivial question and it insults the steelworkers about whom I am concerned.

Meg Munn: Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an assessment of the effect of the outrageous 30 per cent. tariff that will be placed on exports of some products, many of which are manufactured in south Yorkshire, and of the likely effect on manufacturers in the US who currently rely on those products, which come from our area?

Patricia Hewitt: We are in the process of making precisely that assessment, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that, given the number of different companies involved at this end, the number of different purchasers involved in the manufacturing sector in the United States, and the number of different products involved—we and others have been seeking exemption for over 1,000 products during these discussions—it is not possible to arrive at an instant assessment.
	As I said in my statement, some 4 per cent. of total British steel output will be affected by these tariffs if they go ahead on the basis of last night's statement, but obviously that will affect some companies, which specialise in those products, much more than it will others. We are looking to do that assessment very quickly. We are of course already working with the steel producers, the steel trade association and the steel trade union, to ensure that we have an accurate assessment of the damage that could be done not only to our producers, but to American manufacturing industry. On that basis, we will decide on the appropriate safeguard action that should be taken.

Derek Wyatt: After the end of the American love affair—after Kyoto, the Enron debacle and now this—I am not sure that we should be so surprised that this has happened. However, given the global economy, global systems and global communications, is 60 days now an appropriate time scale in which to consult the WTO? Might we work in future to make the consultation period much shorter than 60 days? Would it be possible to invite Pascal Lamy and the president of the WTO to this place before the recess—not to the Chamber because we cannot, but to the House of Commons—so that we may express our concerns forcefully to those two people?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course I will look at that possibility, but let me assure my hon. Friend that, having just spoken to Commissioner Lamy, I am in no doubt—and I hope that hon. Members will be in no doubt—about the anger that is felt by him and the Government about the American action and this defiance of World Trade Organisation rules. On my hon. Friend's other point, we will continue to try to strengthen the World Trade Organisation as an institution and to ensure that it has effective dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used by member states who have a complaint rather more speedily than they can at the moment.

David Cairns: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation trade union. On that point, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consult fully and keep informed the leaders of all those who represent and work in the British steel industry? May I ask her to reject out of hand those calls for action that will be tantamount to a transatlantic trade war, which is certainly not in the interests of the British steel industry, or of the British economy and British jobs? Finally, while I appreciate that it is best to try to seek a cross-European approach on the matter, my right hon. Friend will be aware that such agreements can take an awfully long time to reach. May I ask her to ensure that the process is expedited and, if necessary, to retain the right to take action, as urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that would be primarily focused on protecting British jobs and the British economy?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role of the ISTC and of course we are in touch with the union and with others representing steelworkers. I am very glad to say that today the ISTC has welcomed our Government's commitment to support the referral of America to the World Trade Organisation. Let me stress to my hon. Friend that that referral to the WTO dispute procedure has already been initiated. Similarly, Commissioner Lamy has already initiated the work required to invoke the safeguard clause of the European Community rules. As I have stressed repeatedly to the House, we will continue to work in line with the WTO rules, which do give us precisely the basis on which we can take speedy action to defend our steel industry against this appalling action.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and welcome the actions that are proposed to be taken with the WTO. In addition, I particularly welcome her comments about pressing for an exemption for producers of specialised steel exports during those negotiations with the WTO and others. May I bring to her attention the plight of a company in my constituency, Firth Cleveland—a small, specialist producer of high value, high quality cold strip steel? It has maintained a constant—I emphasise the word "constant"—export market in the United States, and has not flooded it. I understand that there is no domestic alternative for its products in the United States. May I ask her to ensure that interests such as those of that company, are adequately represented when we press for exemptions?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend has already drawn my attention to that company in his constituency, and we are already ensuring that we understand fully its position. The point that he makes about the high-value-added products that are being exported at a steady rate—no sudden surge of imports there—to the United States precisely underlines the point that I made earlier that the American action risks damaging its own manufacturing sector, precisely when that sector is beginning to emerge from the recession in America. Although it may seem ironic, we may well be acting in the interests of American manufacturing industry, as well as his and other steel producers, when we seek—I hope, successfully—the exemption for which he presses.

Points of Order

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During last evening's debate in the House on whether this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament is responsible for approving new power stations in Scotland, especially nuclear power stations, Opposition parties tried eight times to elicit an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, Scotland Office.
	Simultaneous to that debate, the Minister for Industry and Energy was answering that question outside the House. Further confusion arises because most hon. Members understood the Ministers in that debate to say that Westminster would take the final decision, while the Minister for Industry and Energy was saying that it would be taken in Scotland. What protection is there for hon. Members who are involved in a debate in the House when Ministers of the Crown make contrary statements elsewhere? Does not that involve an element of discourtesy? How do we proceed now? Does a form of arbitration between Ministers exist? Do we toss a coin? Better still, could a statement be made to clarify the position once and for all?

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I add my voice as one who is fervently pro-nuclear power stations? There should be clarification; this is an important issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I tell both hon. Gentlemen that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for ministerial statements? The point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is, in a sense, a continuation of yesterday's debate. The principal point is that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers' statements on such matters.

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to explain why he chose to disregard London Transport's advice not to publish the Ernst and Young report on value for money at London Underground because that would undermine the only competitive leverage left in negotiations? Would it be appropriate for him to come here to set out what assessment he has made of the commercial damage caused by his actions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the occupant of the Chair to judge whether those matters are appropriate or inappropriate, and I have no knowledge of such a statement.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given the Chair notice. Yesterday afternoon I received a letter from the BBC signed by Michael Hastings CBE, who is described as head of political and parliamentary affairs. He has previously been brought to the attention of the Chair for his activities in the House.
	The letter relates to the proceedings on which we are about to embark. It says:
	"An inappropriate level of attention has been focused on the BBC and its regulation throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages in the Commons."
	Mr. Hastings goes on to say:
	"It is our hope that this Wednesday's debate will be more constructive".
	Referring to amendments that have been tabled for the House to discuss on Report, he says:
	"Amendments have again been tabled which seek to bypass the White Paper and propose an alternative model. The BBC rejects these options."
	What can one do about the impertinence of a lobbyist who writes to the Chairman of a Select Committee on such matters in an offensive way? Could it be drawn to the BBC's attention that it has no power either to reject or to accept options that are laid before the House, because they are for us to debate and to decide? Is it not particularly unsatisfactory that the House of Commons should be treated in such a way by someone whose organisation is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee, whose job is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee and whose letter to me was funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee? Is it not a fact that that person has a vested interest in those amendments being rejected because they would affect not only the BBC, but himself? What can we do to deal with offensive communications of such a nature from a vested interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no control over communications of that kind made by people outside the House. I have no doubt, however, that the BBC will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that the House, too, will bear them in mind when it debates the amendments.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Office of Communications Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	OFCOM offices in Wales and Scotland

'OFCOM shall establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered.'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Simon Thomas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
	'(3A) The Secretary of State shall—
	(a) ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a member to represent Welsh and Scottish matters, and
	(b) in appointing this member, shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.
	No. 16, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
	'(4A) In appointing members of OFCOM, the Secretary of State shall consult with the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered.'.
	No. 17, in schedule, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
	'(4) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, OFCOM shall also prepare and send to the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament a report of how OFCOM is ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are being adequately met.'.
	No. 18, in page 12, line 9, at end insert—
	'(1A) OFCOM shall establish—
	(a) a Welsh Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Wales, and
	(b) a Scottish Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Scotland;
	and in appointing these committees, OFCOM shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.
	No. 19, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	'(5) The membership of every committee established by OFCOM must contain at least one representative for Wales and one representative for Scotland; and in appointing these representatives, OFCOM shall consult with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.

Simon Thomas: We debated the Office of Communications in Wales and Scotland in Committee and the new clause gives hon. Members an opportunity to revisit the issue, no doubt to the great joy of Ministers. Hon. Members have had the chance to think about the import of the new clause and the amendments and how they would assist the work of Ofcom. I hope that the Minister has also thought about the wonderful job that he can do for Welsh and Scottish broadcasting and communications, which no doubt he does every day, by accepting them.

Michael Fabricant: I know that the hon. Gentleman will make some powerful points and I will be interested to discover how the Minister will counter them. Does not the Independent Television Commission have representatives for Wales and Scotland, as it did when it was the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Given that it is Ofcom's role to embrace the powers of existing bodies, the lack of such representation is an omission and marks a deterioration of their function to exercise control.

Simon Thomas: I concur with that powerful point, although it takes me away from my argument. In light of the earlier point of order, I add that amendments tabled by Conservative Members seek to extend to the BBC board of governors some of Ofcom's powers. Of course, the BBC itself has representation for Wales and Scotland. There is a national governor for Wales on the board, and there is a broadcasting council for Wales. Much of the industry that we seek to regulate through Ofcom has a distinct representation for Wales and Scotland. That will be lost under the Bill, unless my amendments are carried and the Bill says more about how the content of communications will be regulated in Wales and Scotland.
	It may help the House if I explain how my proposals would achieve that aim.

Andrew Miller: Again.

Simon Thomas: Yes, again.
	The new clause seeks to ensure that Ofcom will
	"establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered."
	That proposal was debated in Committee, and, to be fair, the Minister pointed out that in December 2000 the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport stated clearly that Ofcom would have offices in Scotland and Wales. I was pleased to hear that in Committee, but on reflection I think that it would be worth stating it in the Bill.
	If it is intended that Ofcom should have offices in Wales and Scotland—of course, this may also be an issue for Northern Ireland—I do not see why that should not be firmly stated in the Bill so that people in Wales and Scotland who are interested in these matters know that it will happen. We have a promise from the previous Secretary of State, but not from the present one, so it would be useful if she repeated that promise in today's debate. The new clause would ensure not only that the offices were established but that they were not ersatz or virtual offices that open only every other Wednesday when there is an R in the month. We need a real office dedicated to the needs of communications in Wales.
	Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that the membership of Ofcom includes a member to represent Welsh and Scottish matters and that in appointing that member the Secretary of State consults the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. We debated in Committee whether that member should be a representative directly elected or selected by the Assembly and the Parliament. I have not tabled such an amendment on Report. The Government were very dismissive of the proposal in Committee, which is unfortunate because it is the request of the Assembly.
	It is worth repeating that the Assembly Cabinet report of 24 January 2001 said:
	"We recommend that the Board of Ofcom should likewise include a member representing the interests of Wales. We suggest that that Member for Wales should be appointed by the National Assembly."
	It is true that those are only recommendations and suggestions, but the Government have not sought to implement them. The Minister nods to confirm that; I suspect that he takes a different view from the Assembly because after all he, not the Assembly, is responsible for broadcasting and communications in Wales.

Brian White: The Bill is about more than broadcasting, which is what the hon. Gentleman has referred to. He argues that the board should be representative. Will he explain why? What vested interests should it represent? Should only Scotland and Wales be represented or should every other vested interest, legitimate or otherwise, also be represented?

Simon Thomas: I have a sense of deja vu from the Committee proceedings. I have been very careful in referring to communications throughout the debate, and although broadcasting is an important part of the Welsh fabric, communications are very important, as I hope I shall shortly demonstrate. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question about why there should be representation. I promise to answer it, although he might not be happy with my answer. First, let me finish exploring why there is no representation in any shape or form for Wales and Scotland on the proposed Ofcom.
	The amendment differs slightly from that which I tabled in Committee. It would simply ensure that, whoever the five or six members of Ofcom to be appointed by the Secretary of State are, and whatever the interests, such as broadband, that they bring with them—they are unlikely to be geographical interests, as the Government have made clear; I do not accept that, but I do accept reality—a member of Ofcom should have the specific additional interest of ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are looked after.
	That is the minimum that we can expect within a devolution settlement. Anything less begs the questions how on earth devolution is to work, and how the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament are supposed to relate to Ofcom given that progress and evolution are occurring within devolution.
	I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my fairly new suggestion. I am encouraged by some of the responses received after our debate in Committee from commercial companies such as Vodafone. They see no problem in my suggestion. They want a small, concentrated—non-dilute, if one likes—Ofcom comprising a small but powerful body of people who know exactly what they are about, but those companies foresee no problems arising if, in addition, some of the individual members of Ofcom have a responsibility to look after Welsh broadcasting interests, or Scottish communications interests, or the disability interests covered by a later amendment.
	It is important that the Government explain how, if there is to be no dedicated person, those aims are to be achieved within Ofcom—or are Welsh and Scottish interests merely to be subsumed in the overriding UK-wide interests? Any such subsumption—if that is the right word—of Welsh and Scottish needs in a UK-wide body would be damaging to Wales and Scotland.
	Amendment No. 19 would ensure that every committee established by Ofcom contains at least one representative for Wales and one for Scotland, and that in appointing those representatives, Ofcom should consult with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. If we are to have a small concentrated Ofcom, I see no reason why the various interests should not be represented on the consultative committees that it sets up.
	I remain to be convinced, but if the Government are right that Ofcom can work with a role that is not representative but relates to the communications sector as a whole, they have to accept that Ofcom will need roots—it will need information and some means of consulting surrounding bodies and the wider public. Six people cannot do that. They may be experts in their field and the ideal people to advise and inform the Government and to regulate the industry, but they cannot undertake the wider accountability role.
	Let us think about what we are doing. We heard in the point of order about the role of Parliament. We are abdicating our regulatory role—it is right that we do so, because we in Parliament cannot control everything, but it is rightly our role—to a quango, a non-departmental public body, a new body called Ofcom. There is nothing new in that because we have already ceded that role to the bodies that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned. However, in doing that, we should have one eye on wider accountability.
	We know how much say we as individual Members of Parliament will have in the workings of Ofcom and how few opportunities we will have to debate the matter. Perhaps there will be an annual debate, or a debate in Westminster Hall, or the occasional parliamentary question, but our day-to-day ability to hold Ofcom to account for its actions in the name of our constituents and our nations will be extremely limited. It is therefore incumbent on us to say now that Ofcom should have a good working relationship with the industries, with the people of the UK as a whole, and with the people of Wales and Scotland. It is valuable to think of the advisory bodies for Ofcom playing that important role. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, as he said in Committee, that this is only a paving Bill and that we should not bother the Government with details as they are about to set up this lovely little body. However, the devil is in the detail and the details show whether Ofcom can deliver communications needs in Wales and Scotland.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that whatever else the advisory committees might do for Ofcom and whatever other subject they might cover, there should be geographical representation for Wales and Scotland. I hope that he will put that on the record tonight, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment.
	What is different about Wales and Scotland? What sort of matters need to be addressed by Ofcom? Why do we need, if not representation, at least an avenue—the triangle of office, individual and advisory body—so that the average person in Wales, or anybody involved in any of these industries in Wales, knows where to go and who is accountable for decisions that will impact on the communications industry in Wales?
	Let us first consider the analogue switch-off and the move to digital. The Government have said that that will happen when we have achieved 95 per cent. digital television coverage. There is a danger that Wales and Scotland will lose out because that is a UK figure. If one thinks about the natural geography of Wales and Scotland, it becomes clear why a UK figure of 95 per cent. coverage could easily mean a figure of 80 per cent. in Wales and 85 per cent. in Scotland. That would be hugely disadvantageous.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way. As the Member for Pontypridd, unable to receive anything beyond four channels, let me tell him that over my dead body will my constituents and I not be able to receive everything through terrestrial, digital or some other platform.

Simon Thomas: I accept that. Unfortunately, I am not concerned about the hon. Gentleman's constituents but about mine. My constituents, who live in a rather more remote area, may be the last on the line. I am pleased that the Minister makes that promise, but I would like Wales and Scotland to reach that target of 95 per cent. coverage as well before switch-off. That would be Ofcom's job. At present, the Government promise only a UK figure. Ofcom could change that and ensure that the figure was 95 per cent. in the constituent parts of the UK. Would it do that, however, if it did not contain sufficient Welsh or Scottish representatives?

Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman triggered my intervention by talking about being "on the line". Of course, his constituents could receive satellite distribution of digital television. Admittedly, that is a subscription service, but it carries the free-to-air broadcast. In my judgment, the rural areas will have to depend on satellite distribution if we are ever to have switch-off.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters informed the Committee. I do not quite agree with him, however, although I agree that it is de facto. For anyone living in Aberystwyth or anywhere along the west Wales coast, the choice if they want digital, de facto, is satellite. [Interruption.] Indeed, perhaps even in Pontypridd.
	The 28 gigahertz broadband fixed wireless access did not get sold off in Wales. I shall return to that shortly, as there is an opportunity to make more of it.

Michael Fabricant: There will not necessarily be universal access by satellite. On the north side of a steep incline, the satellite angle of elevation is quite low. If a geostationary satellite over the equator cannot be looked at, it will not be possible to pick up satellite television. The topology of Wales—even that of Pontypridd—is known for its north faces, so I suspect that satellite distribution will not be universally available.

Simon Thomas: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been for a walk up the Graig recently, but he might have seen the topography of Pontypridd if he had. My notes refer to a mountainous area with intense interference, which I think is what he was referring to in a more technical and understandable way.
	I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. These are matters that must be ironed out. Whether we can get to 100 per cent. take-up is a moot point, but the 95 per cent. target should apply to Wales as well as to the UK as a whole. In fact, take-up in Wales has been a little faster than in the rest of the UK, which might seem to underline my argument. The take-up has been faster, up to a point. That point is reached when the choice is not available and take-up is not possible.
	My contention is that full potential take-up of digital services and the digital communication revolution will not be possible in Wales until we have an adequate broadband network in Wales. The issues of technical interference, satellite, and take-up from analogue are all related to the overriding need for the economy of Wales to create a broadband network. One answer would be to create a range of local transmitters. Such an experiment is taking place in my area with the Maran broadband network, which Ceredigion county council, Powys and, I think, Carmarthenshire have worked together to achieve.
	That points the way, but there are drawbacks to local transmitters. There is much local opposition to radio transmitters. People worry that they are dangerous, the Stewart report has raised concerns about them, and of course the transmitters are visually intrusive. Nevertheless, in the short term that is one of the best ways of delivering broadband to rural areas.
	The National Assembly for Wales recently invested in ensuring digital take-up for every school throughout Wales. That will bring a broadband link, in theory at least, into virtually every village and community in many parts of rural Wales. The question is whether we can get the short hop from those transmitters to businesses to bring about the potential economic growth that can follow from broadband communication.
	I do not want any area of Wales to miss out on the revolution in digital communications that broadband promises—for example, the ability to sell directly and to interact over broadband. That is available in only a limited way through satellite. Selling through satellite has largely been a failure. I understand that several companies are pulling back from direct marketing in that way, as it simply does not work. Scrolling through an Argos catalogue by satellite takes far too long and no one is interested, now that the internet is available. The challenge is to link the two, and broadband is that link.

Paul Farrelly: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the amendments? As a fellow Celt of Irish extraction, I had lunch yesterday with S4C. It was made clear to me that S4C considers itself not just a Welsh broadcaster, but a British broadcaster and was keen to be regulated from London. Coming back to the subject of the amendments, has the hon. Gentleman any comments on that stance?

Simon Thomas: I am not the Member for S4C, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that S4C gave him lunch because that obviously underpins its UK-wide remit. It is good to hear that. As he has accused me in a roundabout way of straying from the subject, I remind him that the amendments are about how Wales will benefit from the digital revolution which is to be regulated by Ofcom. I am trying to set out for the benefit of the House—

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members say that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has been wandering off the subject of the amendments. If that were the case, surely you would have called him to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.

Simon Thomas: With that vote of confidence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude the argument about broadband and its relationship to the regulatory system which Ofcom is set up to implement. At present we do not have a very good story to tell about broadband communication in the UK. According to the figures that I have for the UK's broadband connectivity, we are in 22nd place in the world league. That is a poor result for the Government. We are behind Portugal and Spain, for example. I regret to say that if the figures for Wales were disaggregated, we would be bottom in the UK in broadband access. Broadband infrastructure is essential for the development of the Welsh communications industry.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not taken account of BT's announcement last week. That will be the platform under which broadband will develop extensively in Britain because it is exactly what everyone has been asking for at a low wholesale price. He should bear that in mind when he is making his comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been reasonably tolerant with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) so far, but he must address his remarks to the new clause.

Simon Thomas: I simply say briefly that the BT announcement does not take into account the cost of bringing broadband to rural areas. I do not believe that broadband access for rural areas will come through BT; it will come by other means.
	I come now to why Wales needs to be represented on Ofcom. The public service role of broadcasting is particularly relevant. Programming in Wales is different from that elsewhere in the UK. The situation is unique. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) met S4C—SpedwarC—and knows that it is a public service broadcaster, established after many years of campaigning in Wales, which provides a hugely valuable service to television viewers in Wales in the Welsh language. That is a unique feature not found elsewhere in the United Kingdom that needs to be looked after and protected within a regulatory environment. If that regulatory environment is to be Ofcom, there surely needs to be someone within Ofcom, whether an advisory committee, a member of Ofcom itself or someone on the office side, who understands what S4C and Welsh language broadcasting is about, and what English language broadcasting in Wales is about. That is why some form of representation for Wales and Scotland within the proposed Ofcom body is so important.
	If Scotland and Wales, as peripheral countries in terms of economic development—[Interruption.] In terms of economic growth we lag behind. I do not know the Scottish figure but my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) backs me up. Wales has 80 per cent. of the UK's GDP, so we cannot be described as anything other than lagging behind. We are told that broadband can bring us together, that it cuts the distance between markets and that it will be part of the answer to bringing rural areas of Wales and Scotland into the mainstream of economic development. If that is to happen, Ofcom must regulate it. It must set up the structures and the fabric that will allow it to happen. It will not do so if it does not pay proper attention to Welsh and Scottish needs, and it will not do that if there is no way of them being effected in the constitution of Ofcom. That is why we need to decide the matter now in a debate on the membership of Ofcom, not afterwards in a debate on the communications Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: For those of us who are used to the hon. Gentleman's friends in the Scottish National party in their usual sectarian mode of address in the House or in Grand Committee, it was a pleasure to hear the more constructive tone with which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) addressed the House today. I do not wish to pursue that line much further because I would no doubt be ruled out of order and I in no way wish to cause a division between the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleague, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who has joined him belatedly.
	Although his manner may have been constructive, I suspect that beneath the fine words of the hon. Gentleman and his SNP friends there is still the same nationalist agenda, which is to undermine the devolution settlement and reopen the question of responsibility for broadcasting between the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Simon Thomas: Not undermine the devolution settlement, build on it.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is a matter of opinion how that is best to be done. Had the hon. Gentleman not intervened at that point he would have heard me move on to say that beneath the nationalist agenda pursued by him and his SNP friends on occasion after occasion, sometimes there are points which have some merit. Although the agenda that he is promoting today undoubtedly pursues his nationalist objectives, there are also those within Scotland, and no doubt within Wales, who are concerned about the way in which Scottish and Welsh interests will be represented within Ofcom, so it would be helpful if the Minister would restate the Government's commitment to ensuring that Scottish and Welsh interests are taken on board in the eventual structure of the new regulatory arrangements.
	Concerns about Scottish and Welsh representation have come from bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council. I urge the Government to make clear, either at this stage or some future one, how such interests will be taken into account. In its report on the issue, the Scottish Consumer Council made the vital point that in the interests of Scottish consumers it is essential for Ofcom and its consumer panel to have a physical presence in Scotland and for both bodies to have clear effective policy relationships with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and with a range of stakeholders within Scotland. I endorse those comments.
	I welcome the commitment that has already been made to having an office in Scotland and I urge the Government further to expand upon the ways in which they envisage such links with the Scottish Parliament, the Executive and stakeholders in Scotland being set up. During the past few weeks, as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I have heard evidence from several organisations concerned with current affairs broadcasting in Scotland, and the relationship between Ofcom and Scottish interests after the new regulatory arrangements have been set up has been raised in passing by several bodies. I therefore hope that the Government will today be able to give some indication of the ways in which they hope to address these concerns.

Pete Wishart: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) giving way or has he completed his remarks?

Mark Lazarowicz: I was about to complete my remarks, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Pete Wishart: Given the evidence of those representations, will the hon. Gentleman join Plaid Cymru and the SNP in the Division on the new clause?

Mark Lazarowicz: I regret that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The way in which the new clause has been drafted is not helpful or practical. Given the size of the organisation involved, the arrangements set out are not the right way forward. However, I accept that there is a need to make clear how these concerns will be dealt with and I hope that in that respect at least the Government will be able to say how they will take such interests into account in future.

Michael Fabricant: I rise in general support of the new clause. I do so as an Englishman and a Conservative Back Bencher, but also as someone with strong Welsh connections. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is being as unclear as ever from a sedentary position. The hon. Gentleman could not be bothered to listen to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) about broadband—something that he himself constantly prattles on about—and arrived late. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to appear late and start shouting from a sedentary position.

Kim Howells: Get on with it.

Michael Fabricant: I am happy to talk at some length if there are to be sedentary interventions from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman made many such interventions in Committee, as a direct result of which our proceedings were elongated.

Chris Bryant: Arrant hypocrisy.

Michael Fabricant: Hypocrisy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We ought to settle down, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should address the new clause.

Michael Fabricant: I shall not pursue what I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a question of what the hon. Gentleman hears or does not hear. The occupant of the Chair decides these matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now address the new clause.

Michael Fabricant: I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Member for Rhondda just said that I was being a hypocrite.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should now address the new clause. Those were not the words that were used. He should get on with his speech.

Michael Fabricant: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is absolutely right that Wales and Scotland should have an Ofcom office to provide symmetry with existing provision. The Minister will know that the Independent Television Commission, and, previously, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, had regional offices and offices in Scotland and Wales as well as in England. Of course, they also had offices in Northern Ireland, and I am not quite clear as to why Northern Ireland was not included in the new clause. As devolution has taken place in Wales and Scotland, it seems absolutely right that Ofcom should represent the interests of Wales and Scotland.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion has already raised the question of analogue switch-off, which is a moot point at the moment. The Government say that analogue switch-off should take place, but no date has been set. As I understand it, analogue switch-off will occur when 95 per cent. of the population have access to digital television. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because of topography, 99 per cent. of the population in England might have such access, while much less than 95 per cent. of the population in Wales and Scotland might have such access. There must be a voice in Ofcom, first, to ensure that analogue switch-off does not happen before adequate coverage has been achieved in Scotland, Wales and—I shall add—Northern Ireland. Secondly, there must be a voice in Ofcom to promote the provision of digital services in Wales and Scotland.
	As I said in an intervention, we cannot necessarily rely on satellite transmission for the provision of digital television. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North–East (Brian White) will rightly say that this an issue not just about television but about interactivity. Interactivity is not available from geostationary satellites over the equator, although it may be available from low earth-orbit satellite constellations. I do not think that such satellites are currently up and running, although I stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North–East. Microwave facilities could be made available, but as the hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly pointed out, health concerns exist about microwave provision, although they may not be justified. Concerns also exist about the looks of such antennae, with which I have every sympathy.

Ian Taylor: This is the second time that such concerns have been raised. Will my hon. Friend note that, this week, scientists have again made it emphatically clear that emissions from masts are at a fraction of the safety levels that have been set? The scare tactics perpetrated by some newspapers and some of the so-called environmental groups in this country are nothing short of a scandal. We must lay this ghost quickly.

Michael Fabricant: I am happy to acknowledge that point. I am—dare I say it—a fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which produced a similar report five or six months ago. It is surprising that the main media in this country are not doing much to put this lie to bed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. Nevertheless, my point was that there is a perceived danger, albeit that that perception is wrong, as I tell my constituents.
	The third reason why we need to have a representative on the main board of Ofcom from Wales and Scotland is the provision of broadband. In all fairness to the hon. Member for Rhondda, he has consistently argued for that. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, Britain does not have a great deal to boast about when it comes to the distribution of broadband in the United Kingdom. Although we have one of the highest levels of internet penetration in the world, we are 22nd in terms of the provision of broadband, and the level of provision in Scotland and Wales is far lower. It is particularly vital to make broadband available in Scotland and Wales if satellite communication is not available for the reasons that I gave earlier.
	I support the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Wales and Scotland will suffer a technical deficit if someone does not fight their corner. The best way to have someone fighting their corner is to have representatives from Wales, Scotland and—yes—Northern Ireland on the board of Ofcom.

Anne McIntosh: I remind the House at the outset of my pecuniary interest in BT. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate. I am sure that those hon. Members present who were members of the Committee will recall that we discussed this matter at length.
	As we said in Committee, new clause 4 calls for an Ofcom office to be set up in Wales and Scotland. The amendments grouped with it suggest that the membership of Ofcom should include a representative of Welsh and Scottish interests and that, in appointing those representatives, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament shall be consulted. Amendment No. 19 suggests that the membership of every committee established by Ofcom—which seems excessive, if the hon. Member for Ceredigion does not mind my saying so—will include a representative for Wales and a representative for Scotland, and that Ofcom shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in making those appointments.
	The House will recall that the White Paper dealt at length with the relationship between Ofcom and the devolved Assemblies, and the need for the regulators to
	"develop good links with the relevant committees of the devolved assemblies".
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion will recall that when we discussed this matter in Committee I favoured the approach whereby the amendments could have reflected some kind of formal consultation with the Committees of the devolved Assemblies, which was closest to that envisaged by the White Paper. I am therefore disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not follow my suggestion, which would perhaps have enabled us to support his amendments more vigorously. Members got to know each other a little better in Committee, and the Minister may want to take this opportunity to reply to my question. Why is the Bill silent on this and many other aspects that were set out in detail in the White Paper, particularly in relation to the development of good links with Committees of the devolved Assemblies? Does the Minister agree that such an approach would be far preferable?
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion, with his usual eloquence, also talked about the impact in his homeland of analogue switch-off and the switchover to digital. It is regrettable that we cannot discuss that in the context of the United Kingdom, but perhaps we can return to that on Third Reading.
	I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Perhaps the Committee was the poorer for the lack of such contributions.
	As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) demonstrated his knowledge of Wales, which is greater than mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) intervened briefly to speak about the vexed question of telephone masts and scaremongering. All hon. Members receive constituency mail on the subject. I have had cause to raise the matter with BT, which assumed that I was talking about a mast for mobile telephones. Most of the problems in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom relate to such masts. I know that that is a matter of great consequence in your part of East Anglia, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in the Dedham vale. One of my constituents has been fitted with a pacemaker, and real concerns have been raised about what could happen.

Michael Fabricant: The average strength of signal at a mobile telephone mast is 80 watts, compared with 40 million watts at an ultra-high frequency television mast, yet people near Sutton Coldfield or Crystal Palace have not dropped dead because their pacemakers have stopped.

Anne McIntosh: That has not happened that we know of. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point.
	The official Opposition understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the other hon. Members who support the amendments, but we do not share their enthusiasm for them. I do, however, support the White Paper proposal that formal consultation with Committees of the devolved Assemblies could be possible. I wait with anticipation to hear the Minister explain why, as so often, the Government have not followed up a White Paper commitment.

Kim Howells: New clause 4 would require the establishment of Ofcom offices in Wales and Scotland. I am happy to confirm what I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), when he was Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, have said on the matter. I reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that Ofcom will have a presence of the sort that he wants, and I confirmed as much when the Bill was discussed in the Standing Committee. Indeed, some of the existing regulators already have offices in the nations and regions. No doubt, Ofcom will want to consider how that resource might best be utilised.
	New clause 4 is, of course, limited to Wales and Scotland, and I suspect Ofcom will also wish to consider what presence will be necessary elsewhere—in Northern Ireland and, I imagine, in the English regions, given the importance of broadcasting and of other telecommunications industries in other parts of the country. The precise size and nature of any presence in the nations will be a matter for Ofcom to decide, as there will be direct cost and manpower implications for the new organisation.
	Amendment No. 15 would ensure that Ofcom has a single member to represent the interests of Wales and Scotland. As I said previously, the Bill provides Ofcom with one function—to prepare itself for taking on other functions once Parliament has considered the main communications Bill. During this initial phase, Ofcom will deal only with practical issues relating to the transfer of the staff, property and other assets and liabilities of the existing regulators.
	At this stage, therefore, I cannot envisage any matters of a specifically Welsh or Scottish nature that would warrant ensuring that the interests of Wales and Scotland should be represented on the Ofcom board. That applies equally, of course, to the interests of Northern Ireland and the English regions, as well as to the interests of the many other groups who may have a stake in Ofcom's activities.
	It will be important to ensure that legitimate interests should be properly reflected in the structure of Ofcom. The communications Bill will set out how we propose to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are to be represented in Ofcom.
	I turn to amendment No. 16. Honourable Members must bear it in mind that, in the main, telecommunications, broadcasting and spectrum issues are reserved matters. It is not therefore appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have to consult the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament on every appointment to Ofcom that she proposes. Those appointments will reflect the need for the Ofcom board to have particular skills and expertise. Indeed, an appointment may result from the need to have a board member who reflects the exact nature of broadcasting and telecommunications in Wales. However, my right hon. Friend will decide such matters on merit.

Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No. We have spent many minutes discussing the matter, and I am going to move on.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that those general requirements are properly met.
	With regard to amendment No. 17, the Bill provides that Ofcom should prepare an annual report of its proceedings and submit it to the Secretary of State, who must then lay a copy before each House. There is no reason why the report should not include matters relevant to the interests of the devolved nations. I am sure that there will be areas of Ofcom's activities in which the National Assembly for Wales and Scottish Parliament will have legitimate interests. I believe that it would therefore be appropriate for Ofcom's annual report to be made available to the Assembly and to the Scottish Parliament in order to facilitate debate; but that should be a subject for concordats rather than a matter to appear in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 18 proposes establishing specific Welsh and Scottish advisory committees. The Bill contains provisions that allow Ofcom to set up committees as it sees fit. There is nothing to stop it establishing advisory committees on national or regional issues if it considers that there is a specific need. I see no need for Ofcom to be required to set up specific Welsh and Scottish committees during the initial phase, when it will only be undertaking preparations for its future role.
	I also believe that requiring a Welsh and Scottish member to be appointed to every committee established by Ofcom, as amendment No. 19 suggests, goes much too far. Where devolved nations have legitimate interests in the work of the committees that it may establish, Ofcom will, of course, want to ensure suitable arrangements for those interests to be properly heard. However, there may well be cases where Ofcom sets up committees on matters in relation to which there are no discernable Welsh or Scottish interests. It would be entirely wrong in such cases for Ofcom to be placed under an obligation to appoint Welsh and Scottish representatives to them.
	For all those reasons, I oppose the amendments.

Simon Thomas: I want to reply briefly to the Minister's remarks. I am grateful for the support that I have received for some of the amendments from the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I was interested in the Scottish perspective provided by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), and especially in the comments from the Scottish Consumer Council. I was not aware of those comments, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House that information.
	Two central principles are at stake. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, the White Paper made it clear that there should be some form of consultation between the devolved bodies and Ofcom. In addition, the National Assembly for Wales made it clear that it wanted more than consultation. It said that it wanted representation, and that it wanted to choose its representative on Ofcom. I point out that the Assembly in controlled by Labour.
	The hon. Member for Vale of York asked why I had not changed my proposals. The reason is that, as I said, the National Assembly for Wales wanted representation as well as consultation. I hope that she accepts that explanation of why I was not able to accede to her arguments in Committee.
	The Minister has not promised representation, or that the National Assembly will be able to select or appoint Ofcom members. He has not even offered consultation, and he has not promised any connection between Ofcom and the devolved bodies in Wales and Scotland. He has said clearly that, because the matters involved are retained and not devolved, there should be no formal arrangements such as those proposed in the amendments.
	I point out that the Strategic Rail Authority has formal arrangements with the Scottish Parliament and with National Assembly for Wales. [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who has been making sedentary comments throughout the debate but does not see fit to take part, as always, that railways are not devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, so the new clause explores a very important principle—a principle more important than the question whether Ofcom has X members or whether a member represents Wales or bits of Scotland and so on. The important principle is this: when we now set up UK-wide bodies, post devolution, how do they relate to the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament? The Minister's response to that question was totally inadequate, so I shall seek to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.

Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful to you for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings. I would like to ask you whether the Secretary of State for Health has asked your permission to make a statement to the House about the decision by Greenwich hospital to take out an injunction preventing my local paper from publicising a health risk to patients. Could you also tell me whether the hospital would require the permission of the Secretary of State to issue such an injunction?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intimating to me that she wished to raise that point of order. I think that she will know that the Chair cannot opine on the second part of her question. The answer to the first part of her question is no. She has, however, put the matter on the record and attention will, no doubt, be paid to her anxiety.

Clause 1
	 — 
	The Office of Communications

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
	'(2A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a member dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented.'.
	Amendment No. 14 is a slight rehash of what was discussed in Committee, but it is an important amendment none the less. We need to be seen to have debated this issue on the Floor of the House, and to hear the response from the Minister. The amendment seeks to ensure that the membership of Ofcom includes a member dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented. It is important to emphasise at the outset that I am not seeking to ensure that there is a representative from one of the disability groups in Ofcom. That would be difficult to achieve. One cannot conceive of the kind of structures that might be necessary to give rise to an election—or whatever it might be—to get such a representative into Ofcom. It is important, however, to recognise how Ofcom will meet the needs of disabled people as it is being established by the House.
	It was argued in Committee that all members of Ofcom should deal with the needs of disabled people, and that this is not an issue that we can hive off to one individual. I accept that, as a central premise and as a general way of working, it would be good for the whole of society to operate along those lines. Nevertheless, if we do not flag up clearly at the legislating stage just how the needs of disabled people are to be looked after by Ofcom, we are in danger not of having every Ofcom member look after them but of having none.
	There are about 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, and the 2 million of them with serious sight problems are of particular relevance to the Bill. There is an obvious link there to broadcasting, and we are all aware of the campaign for subtitles in the broadcast media. That is one important example. A second example relating to sight problems is the use of the internet and the communications revolution related to it. We increasingly see the need to adapt the services available, and most internet products now have special accessibility facilities in their software to help people with disabilities to use that software to its best advantage.
	People with disabilities are now increasingly accessing the full benefits of our society through the communications revolution. The question we must ask is how we can ensure that their needs are represented on the body responsible for regulating that revolution.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Nick Harvey: rose—

Simon Thomas: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman enormously for giving way. He made very cogent arguments in Committee on this point. I am still concerned, however, because I do not see why putting all the responsibility for looking after the rights and interests of disabled people on to one person on the board is better than ensuring that the whole board has that responsibility. I point to the example of the BBC. None of its governors has special responsibility for the disabled, yet it has probably the best record of any broadcasting company in the world, not only because of legislation but because of the voluntary action of the governors in ensuring that the vast majority of its programmes are subtitled. It has also taken into consideration the needs of the disabled in the development of its internet services.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not really disagree with him. I could point to S4C—SpedwarC—as another example of a service that is heavily subtitled, both for linguistic reasons and for reasons of access. I shall use another example, however, slightly to counter his argument.
	In a school, each governor is responsible for ensuring that the needs of children with special needs are met. One governor, however, is specifically charged with that duty. I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that unless we discuss the matter properly and—even if we cannot include a measure in the Bill—secure a response from the Minister, rather than one person being responsible for the needs of people with disabilities, no one will be responsible.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is making some good points about the needs of disabled people in the context of the technological revolution, but what does he intend "dedicated" to mean? If he is suggesting that one member of the board should be designated responsible and should go about the task in a dedicated way, I am sympathetic to his proposal, but I suspect that he wants one person to carry out the task to the exclusion of all else. Given that the board might comprise only three people, there could be a chairman and a chief executive, and a third member dedicated solely to safeguarding the interests of disabled people. I doubt whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intends, but I think it is what his amendment says.

Simon Thomas: It is certainly not what I intend, but I do not think the amendment says it either. I do not have Roget's thesaurus to hand, but I am sure that requiring that one member be dedicated to meeting the needs of people with disabilities does not mean that that member cannot be dedicated to other matters as well. The amendment does not use the phrase "solely dedicated". I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is rather tendentious.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the Minister, that if my drafting abilities are flawed after a couple of years here, I am happy for the Government to exercise their full power and produce a better example—but they have not done so yet. No doubt the Minister will say that this is yet another issue for a communications Bill rather than an Ofcom Bill.
	The Towers Perrin report is an important independent report to the five current regulators, which considers how Ofcom would work and how different groups would be represented—or, at least, would have a say and an input. It states that Ofcom should
	"actively promote clear links with, and understanding of, all OFCOM's key stakeholder categories."
	Surely people with disabilities constitute an important stakeholder category. There are 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, 2 million of whom have sight problems. If we do not say in this paving Bill exactly how their needs will be met, we are in danger of forgetting those needs.
	I hope that my amendment will entice the Minister to say a little more than he said in Committee. He was sympathetic—I think that was the word he used then—but I want a fuller explanation of how the needs of people with disabilities will be met by Ofcom. If they are not to be met by a person who is designated, dedicated or whatever, how will the Ofcom structures meet them? I should like the Minister to say a little more about that before the publication of the communications paper and the communications Bill.
	Given the lobbying by disability organisations and the requests of people with disabilities—fair lobbying and fair requests—I think it incumbent on us to provide maximum access to communications of all kinds. That means that before passing any legislation we should pause to think about how it will meet the needs of disabled people, to debate the issue, and to give the Minister an opportunity to give what I hope will be a cogent and coherent explanation.

Michael Fabricant: Again, I shall speak briefly.
	I support at least the principle of the amendment, although I too have doubts about the draftsmanship. I think I got the hint from what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said at the outset that he would not press the amendment to a vote, but we shall have to wait and see.
	Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman said, we ought to debate the matter here, and the amendment provides a mechanism for us to do just that. A large proportion of those in the United Kingdom suffer from disabilities of one form or another. I have received an excellent briefing from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which makes some interesting points. I would tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), if he were present, that I did not have to go out to lunch with its representatives.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) rightly pointed out that the BBC has already done much to support people who are hard of hearing, by providing subtitles. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the BBC provides a higher proportion of subtitled programmes—or closed-caption programmes, as they would be called in the United States—than any other broadcasting organisation in the world. That is commendable, although the same is done by other UK broadcasting bodies.
	There are other issues, however. There is, for instance, the whole question of what the RNIB calls digital exclusion. We heard about that earlier in the context of the inability to provide broadband in certain parts of Scotland and Wales, and in some rural areas in this country, but there are other forms of digital exclusion, some of which affect blind and partially sighted people. Such people could be watching, or at least enjoying, television programmes with their families if only audio descriptions were available.

Chris Bryant: I think we all agree on the absolute necessity of putting disabled people's interests at the heart of discussions about the future of information technology in the communications industry and broadcasting, but I still do not understand why what strikes me as ghettoising those issues by relegating them to a single member of the board constitutes an advance rather than a retrograde step.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, if one person out of only three performed the task, there would be a very odd ghetto in the shell Ofcom organisation to be set up by this paving Bill. However, while I cannot put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I think he tabled the amendment not because he particularly wanted it to be passed today, but because it could serve as a mechanism—a gadget, if you like—enabling us to debate an issue that would not have been debated without it.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right, and on this occasion I do not mind his putting words into my mouth. Let me also say, however, that what we really need is an explanation from the Government of how the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) can be made flesh. If the needs of people with disabilities are to be at the heart of Ofcom, how is that to be achieved? We cannot take it for granted. My amendment may be flawed, but at least it tries to explore that question.

Michael Fabricant: Indeed—and, after this brief debate, the Minister will have an opportunity to sum up. I hope he will tell us then what specific measures will be taken. I warn him that I shall ask some questions in a few moments, which I hope he will be able to answer despite the short notice he will have been given.
	There is the danger of what the hon. Member for Rhondda described as a ghetto within families, when a family is watching television and a blind or partially sighted family member cannot join in. The technology is now available to enable them to do just that—there is equipment for audio description—but in the whole United Kingdom only 45 households that include blind people have been given that equipment. Furthermore, there are no plans to produce more such equipment.
	I raise these issues because the disabled—including the blind and partially sighted—need a voice in Ofcom. Whether such issues should be discussed by one "dedicated" person, as the amendment states, or by several people is a moot point, but what is important is that they be discussed.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman's argument underlines the problem with the amendment. Although it and the previous amendment would establish on the Ofcom board a representative for those interest groups, they would not necessarily create a board that can respond to such issues. Surely the important question is how Ofcom will respond to the valid issues that need to be addressed, rather than whether a "dedicated" board member should put the arguments of such interest groups.

Simon Thomas: Let us hear the answer.

Michael Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Ceredigion says—putting words into my mouth—let us hear the answer, and I hope that we will indeed hear it from the Minister at the end of the debate. I repeat that Plaid Cymru—I do not know why I am defending that party—was right to table the amendment, because without it the whole question of disability would not have been debated in the Bill's remaining stages.
	Discussing the amendment enables us to put on record the fact that both sides of the House are concerned about this issue. Without such discussion, we might give out the wrong signal—namely, that Parliament is not concerned about such issues—and at a time when the technology is available to overcome many of the problems associated with digital exclusion.
	Before I finish, I should like to ask three or four brief questions of relevance to the amendment, which I hope the Minister can answer. Have Ministers had high-level discussions with disability organisations, and do they plan to have such discussions in the next few months? Those organisations need to be reassured that, if the amendment is not pressed to a vote, Ofcom will nevertheless promote the interests of disabled people. Will arrangements be made to ensure that alternative programming formats are available, and will such formats be publicised effectively, so that people with visual impairment or other disabilities will know about them? Time and again, this Government and past Governments introduced beneficial initiatives, yet the very people who could have benefited from them did not because they did not know that such initiatives existed.
	Will the consultation process involve proactively seeking the opinions of visually impaired people? That is an important issue. Will fully accessible regional meetings, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion would probably welcome, be organised? Of course, this issue concerns not only blind people, but deaf people and those with other disabilities. Technological solutions exist to enable people with disabilities to play a more active role—not just by watching television or listening to the radio, but by participating in interactivity through the provision of broadband. That technology should be made available, and one of Ofcom's roles should be the promotion of it.

Anne McIntosh: The White Paper referred at length, in the context of the communications sector, to those with disabilities. It is regrettable that the Bill is silent on how the needs of people with disabilities will be met. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on raising the issue of people with disabilities through the amendment.
	It is right to discuss the issue of whether the Secretary of State should ensure that membership of Ofcom includes a "dedicated" or designated member, so that the needs of the disabled are represented. However, I am mildly surprised that the amendment is exactly the same as that tabled in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) recalled, several powerful written representations were made, notably by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Responses to the White Paper went further than the amendment. They referred not only to those with disabilities, but to the elderly, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas.
	In asking whether Ofcom will reflect the needs of those with disabilities, I remind the Minister of my particular interest in equal opportunities. Sometimes, those of a different gender can also be regarded as disabled. Will that issue be reflected in the composition of Ofcom and through the work of its committees? As the hon. Member for Ceredigion will recall, I suggested a slightly different wording for his amendment. Rather than referring to a single "dedicated" member of Ofcom, it should have stated that, in the working and decision making of the committees, regard will be had to such interests. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not succumb to my alternative wording. None the less, I pay tribute to Standing Committee members and to other hon. Members for working to meet the very real needs of the deaf and the blind.
	I want to deal in particular with subtitling, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield alluded. I expect that Ofcom will consider subtitling and encourage broadcasters to extend its use as far as possible. Contrary to the wishes of the RND, the Bill is silent on subtitling and signing on television. I draw the Minister's attention to my hon. Friend's eloquent comments concerning making state-of-the-art technology available to the disabled. Even though my original plea fell on deaf ears, the Minister will doubtless take this opportunity to amend the clause.
	Hon. Members will probably agree that Ofcom's committees would have been a better forum in which to deal with such issues. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively to the idea of helping disabled people, regardless of their disability, and that he will explain exactly how Ofcom will achieve precisely that.

Kim Howells: The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made an intriguing comment. She said that, sometimes, being of a different gender is a disability. Was she referring to women or to men?

Anne McIntosh: That is an open question, which we can debate on another occasion.

Kim Howells: Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that a member of Ofcom is responsible for representing the needs of people with disabilities. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of ensuring that Ofcom can properly take into account the interests of the disabled. However, we made it clear during lengthy discussions—we had a half-hour debate in Committee on this one issue—that we want the Ofcom board to remain as small as possible, commensurate with carrying out its responsibilities effectively, as laid down in the Bill. During the initial period before the main communications legislation obtains parliamentary approval, Ofcom will simply be preparing for the assumption of its regulatory functions.
	In paragraph 14 to the schedule, the Bill provides that, once Ofcom is operational, it can establish committees that may be advisory or that have an executive function. Such committees can include lay representation, and we will expect Ofcom to ensure that legitimate interests are properly represented within those structures. As I have said, it is not possible to find a place on the board for every group with an interest in its activities, however worthy or vital. Having said that, the communications White Paper made it clear that Ofcom as a whole must have regard to the special needs of people with disabilities, as well as to those of groups such as the elderly. It will be possible to represent such interests on any relevant committees that Ofcom may decide to establish. That is a better way to ensure that those needs are taken into account by Ofcom in all its activities than by charging a single board member with the responsibility for representing those needs.

Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned how he expected the committees of Ofcom to take into account the needs of the different interest groups. It would be beneficial for the House if he could say explicitly that he would expect the committees to take into account, in whatever way is thought appropriate, the interests and needs of people with disabilities.

Kim Howells: I can say that unequivocally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made clear, we have a good and healthy tradition of so doing among broadcasters in this country. I would expect that to continue and, on that basis, I will oppose the amendment.

Simon Thomas: I am encouraged by what the Minister said in response to my intervention, because that was a more explicit recognition of the need for Ofcom to take account of the needs of people with disabilities through the working of its committees. I can tell the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that that is why I did not change the amendment. She addressed her argument to the committees and I addressed mine to Ofcom, and I suspected that the Minister would say that this Bill is only the paving Bill for Ofcom and that the issue is for the future and is not debatable now.
	We have had a useful debate. It is especially useful to debate the matters on the Floor of the House, because it sends the signal to people with disabilities that we are not letting matters slip. In the light of the Minister's response, especially on the role of the committees of Ofcom, and the opportunity to debate the issue under the next communications Bill, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Initial function of OFCOM

Tim Yeo: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
	'and
	(c) any proposal by the Secretary of State to bring within the remit of OFCOM the BBC Board of Governors.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
	'(aba) the BBC Board of Governors.'.
	No. 8, in schedule, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
	'(aba) a member of the BBC Board of Governors'.

Tim Yeo: The amendments in this group, especially amendment No. 7, go to the heart of the only surviving political controversy in the Bill. Why are the Government persisting in excluding the BBC from the remit of Ofcom? The structure that Ministers have proposed for Ofcom is anomalous, irrational and likely to work against the interests of viewers, listeners, licence fee payers, other broadcasters and the BBC itself.
	It is absurd for Parliament to approve the creation of a new super-regulator for the industry and, at that very moment, leave outside its responsibilities the largest single broadcasting organisation in the country. The BBC has more than half the national radio audience and a substantial share of the total television audience—although the latter is gradually reducing. The chance of primary legislation does not come along very often. After the communications Bill in the next Session, it may be a decade or even longer before another opportunity occurs.
	To those who say that we should not prejudge the forthcoming debate about the renewal of the BBC charter, I say that that debate should start with a recognition that the BBC is increasingly one of a number of broadcasters, albeit a large, special and important one. Its role will be less dominant in future. The BBC's public service obligations are much more stringent than those of other broadcasters and its governors have a primary duty to see that those public service obligations are met. However, so do the boards of Channel 4 and the ITV companies. If the ultimate responsibility lies with Ofcom for all those other broadcasters, so it should for the BBC, especially as it continues to enjoy such a uniquely privileged funding status.
	The Government will eventually have to concede this argument and I urge them to do so today. If they do not, the only remaining chance will be in the communications Bill in the next Session. That Bill is due to be published in draft form soon—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on when we can expect to see it. We could have the absurd situation of the Government publishing a draft Bill that contains an amendment to this Bill, perhaps even before it receives Royal Assent.
	The amendment is designed to save Ministers from that embarrassment—I am ever helpful. I also give the Minister notice that we will seek to press amendment No. 7 to a vote and I hope that we will enjoy the support of all those hon. Members who have expressed support for the principle in the amendment.

Chris Bryant: My problem with the amendment is that it seems to suggest that the issue of the BBC's regulation and how it relates to Ofcom is simply a matter of wholly in or wholly out. The hon. Gentleman was not able to join us in Committee, so he will not have heard all our debates—perhaps he has read all eight of them—but the point was often made that the BBC is already regulated by third parties and therefore will, in large measure, be regulated by Ofcom. The problem with the amendment is that it might make it impossible for the governors and the BBC to have any accountability directly to this House.

Tim Yeo: I assure the hon. Member that nothing I propose will affect his rights, should he be a member of the BBC's pension fund from his time there. I did read the reports of most of the Committee's debates with interest and I was pleased to see that the issues were addressed. I seek to put the BBC on a par with the other broadcasting organisations that will ultimately be regulated by Ofcom. That will still leave the governors with a substantial and important role, to which I shall refer in more detail presently.
	The idea that the amendment, by placing the BBC within Ofcom's remit on the same basis as other organisations, would put the governors out of a job is wrong. As to the question of how accountable the BBC is to this House, that is a matter on which hon. Members will have a variety of views. However, many of us have felt over the years that the existing system falls short of being satisfactory.

Gerald Kaufman: The whole point about the BBC being established under a charter is that it is not accountable to the House of Commons. If it operated under an Act of Parliament, it would be accountable in the same way that Channel 4 is accountable to this House. I well recall that when the Select Committee asked the chairman of the BBC to delay a planned change until the Committee had reported on the matter, he said that that would be yielding to political interference with the BBC. It was a simple request for a delay. As I shall seek to say if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the real problem with the BBC is that it is accountable to no one.

Tim Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and expertise on this subject and I know that he has studied it carefully for a long time. I entirely accept everything he says, particularly the point about the charter and the obstacle that it represents to direct scrutiny by the House. He cited an example in which a wholly reasonable request was denied. Now is the time to address that difficulty. 7 pm

Derek Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman may care to know that I once asked the Table Office whether I could table an amendment about the BBC. The Speaker, who is now in another place, wrote to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State could not make up his mind so he wrote to the chairman of governors, who wrote to the Speaker to say that it was up to her. Clearly, Parliament has no way of holding the BBC to account.
	The question of whether the governors want to be included in Ofcom arises because the board of Ofcom might define, once and for all, what a public service is, then ask the governors to behave by holding the BBC to that remit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is what they fear and why they do not want to be included?

Tim Yeo: That is another example of the difficulties faced by hon. Members in trying to call the BBC to account.
	I do not know the motives of the governors who are apparently resisting the inclusion in Ofcom. Certainly, if Ofcom can produce a definition of public service broadcasting that commands broad agreement, it will have achieved something that has eluded many people over many years. The need to make that definition is growing increasingly urgent, for several reasons.
	My motive in moving the amendment—apart from a general sense of fairness to the other players in the broadcasting industry—is to benefit the BBC. I have no wish to damage the BBC's governors, staff, management or programme makers; and certainly not its viewers, listeners or licence fee payers. The BBC would be strengthened if it were to be so regulated in future. The present situation may have been justified a long time ago, but no longer: it is now anomalous.
	The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has come round to that viewpoint. He spoke impressively on Second Reading, explaining his conversion by saying that his concern for the future of public service broadcasting had led him to share our view that the BBC should have the same relationship with Ofcom as other broadcasters.

Ian Taylor: The issue goes even wider than that. The BBC's problem is that it operates in an increasingly multi-channel digital age with different delivery platforms. It may therefore decide that it wishes to reinforce its position not only by using the internet, cable, satellite, and other delivery mechanisms, but by taking an interest in the production of programmes that compete with the commercial sector. If the BBC is to be able to make effective investment plans, it needs to be part of an organisation that has an overview of all those matters—that is, Ofcom.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend speaks on these matters with great expertise and authority. I entirely agree that we are moving into a world that is wholly different from that of even a decade ago. Many of the opportunities presented to the BBC and other broadcasters were not conceived of at that time. Our comments are not intended as a criticism of people who in the past did not require such a regulatory arrangement. Today, the Government have an opportunity to acknowledge the extent of the changes that have occurred by accepting what has become a widespread view.

Brian White: Having watched the launch of BBC4 the other night, I agree with the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's proposal. However, does he appreciate the danger that, if the amendment were to be accepted, the establishment and initial months of Ofcom would be dominated by discussions about the BBC? The most important matters with which Ofcom will deal relate to communications, but they would be lost in a controversial political debate about the BBC.

Tim Yeo: The best way to ensure that the debate about the establishment of Ofcom is not dominated by arguments about the BBC would be to accept the amendment. That would largely put the matter to rest.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) seemed to suggest—and the hon. Gentleman seemed to agree—that Ofcom should decide on the future investment pattern of the BBC. That would be a dangerous route to take.

Tim Yeo: I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend was suggesting, and it is certainly not what I was agreeing with. He was suggesting that the investment decisions that are made by the BBC and bodies regulated by Ofcom will be affected by a whole range of completely new factors and that it would be all the more anomalous if the BBC alone, among the bodies making those decisions, was not subject to a regulatory regime that could take account of all the new considerations.
	I want to refer briefly to the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), although I know that he will speak later. His opinions on the subject, and those of members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which he chairs, have been consistent for some time. This is not an issue that has just loomed over the horizon.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, and in the debates that preceded it, Ministers and others who tried to defend their insistence on a special exemption for the BBC, have increasingly struggled to make a coherent case. Recently, even since the conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee, the BBC has contributed to the discussions with the publication of the document, "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age". I welcome that document, which is quite revealing in more ways than one. It frankly acknowledges some of the shortcomings inherent in the present situation. That is a useful step forward, although it begs the question why some of the issues were not dealt with before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) says from a sedentary position that we did not change the law when we were in power. As I said, we are in a rapidly-changing environment. Even in the five years since Labour took office, the background to the whole media industry has changed fundamentally.
	I am not criticising people who have not taken such decisions before. I am saying that, in the light of our present knowledge, and given that after the passage of the communications Bill next Session we may not have another chance to legislate on these issues for many years, we must ensure that we react to the situation as it is today. Trying to make cheap points about what the Conservatives did or did not do is completely out of keeping with the spirit of this debate.

Ian Taylor: As the Minister responsible for science and technology in the previous Conservative Government, I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda that at that time the BBC was put on notice that in the multi-channel digital environment that was already becoming inevitable, the definition of public service and the role of the BBC would need to change, perhaps well before the next review of the BBC's charter. The situation has arisen not as a result of failures by the previous Conservative Government, but because of the rate of progress since 1996 in the whole broadcast and internet technology sector.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. In a spirit of consensus with the hon. Member for Rhondda, I should say that I am usually the last person to defend the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Gerald Kaufman: Not quite the last.

Tim Yeo: If the right hon. Gentleman is offering to take over that role, I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues will be glad of his assistance.
	Page 3 of the recently published BBC document reveals that a unit is to be established to ensure that the Government
	"are furnished with performance information, gain a proper understanding of audience behaviour and needs, and can access relevant expertise".
	That is interesting. If the BBC has lacked those things for all these years, one wonders how it has managed to do its job.
	The document also sets out why the BBC believes that oversight by Ofcom, in the manner of all other broadcasting organisations, would be wrong. I am afraid that some of the arguments advanced are very unconvincing. It is claimed on page 6:
	"Taking back-stop powers over the public service remit of the BBC would make Ofcom's effective early operation much more difficult."
	Because something is difficult does not mean that it is wrong. The remainder of Ofcom's very considerable tasks will scarcely be a doddle. I do not see how it should not be able to accept the difficulty—if, indeed, it is one—of dealing with the BBC at the same time. It would be much easier to deal with it from the outset than to have it imposed at a later date, spatchcocked in when Ofcom already has operating procedures in place.
	Equally odd is the argument advanced in favour of continued internal BBC regulation. The document states:
	"Unlike an external regulator, the Governors can take direct action if they believe that the BBC is not serving the public interest. They can change the management, and they can alter the BBC's budget allocation. In other words, they can ensure that the BBC must adhere to their judgement of what is in the public interest"
	Nothing proposed in the amendment would prevent the governors from doing that in future. In my view, they would and should continue to have exactly those powers and to exercise them on a regular basis. Sadly, the reforms proposed in the document do not add up to a great deal. The first of the four aims of the reform plan, as it is described, is said to be
	"To ensure that the distinction between the Governors' role and the management's is clearly understood inside and outside the organisation."
	That is a worthy enough aim, which, after more than 70 years, it might have been hoped would have been addressed already. However, it is certainly not an aim that reduces in any way the case for bringing the BBC fully under Ofcom; nor, indeed, do the other three aims of the so-called reform plan.
	The document sets much store on the improved support that the governors will receive in future, enabling them to discharge their duties in what they describe as "the Ofcom age". This restructuring may or may not help the governors; that is not for me to judge. However, it does not answer this question; why should not the BBC now be regulated on the same basis as the rest of the industry?
	I will not stray from the subject matter of the amendment, but before leaving the document—which I commend to hon. Members as a worthwhile study, and something that will be useful when we discuss the future of the BBC in the context of the debate about charter renewal in the future—I should point out that it refers to the licence fee payers as shareholders. I was interested to pick up on that. I had not noticed that before in a BBC publication, although I have not studied them for as many years as some of my colleagues. I do not know whether that is a pointer to a secret agenda existing somewhere within Broadcasting House.
	On page 2, the chairman's foreword claims:
	"But nor do we have any desire simply to replicate services which could be provided equally well by the private sector."
	I wonder whether he cleared that with the director general before he included it in his foreword. Certainly that is something else that I look forward to returning to when we scrutinise some of the new proposals and the existing activities of the BBC.
	I happened to be in the shadow Cabinet meeting when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) raised a point of order at the start of our proceedings, but I agree with what I believe to be the thrust of his point. I was surprised today to receive a letter from a BBC employee, saying that this House has spent too much time considering this issue and that Parliament should now debate the subject in a more constructive way. The person concerned is fully entitled to his view, but whether it is for the BBC to use licence fee payers' money to employ a member of its staff to act as a lobbyist who then writes to Members of Parliament to say that we are spending too much time debating a particular issue—suggesting that it has been discussed in a way that is not constructive—seems highly questionable.
	The BBC is a powerful organisation with a distinguished history. I hope that it has a successful future. In a multi-channel world and an increasingly global industry, its role in the future will be very different from in the past. When it started as a small organisation operating a monopoly radio station—a pioneering organisation—the role of the governors was totally different from what it is today.
	Today, the BBC enjoys immense privileges. It is funded, uniquely in our national life, by a more than inflation-proofed, guaranteed compulsory levy on consumers; a levy that is highly regressive in its impact on households and which leaves consumers with no alternative but to pay. Against this background, to leave the BBC as a self-regulating organisation in an industry where no other organisation enjoys that status is wrong.
	The time for the BBC governors to be judge and jury in their own affairs has ended. Those governors will still have an important function in the future, but it will be a different one. It is clear to me that most of the media world believes that the BBC should be fully within Ofcom's remit. It is clear that many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that as well—it is clear, I suspect, even to many within the BBC. Eventually—sooner rather than later, I hope—it will be clear to Ministers. They can save themselves and Parliament a great deal of time if they accept the amendment, which I commend to the House.

Gerald Kaufman: May I make it clear that, in the remarks that I offer to the House, I am expressing my personal view and not speaking on behalf of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport? The Committee is considering these matters at the present time. Later in this Parliament, it will no doubt consider what will happen with the BBC when its charter ends in June 2006.
	I also make it clear that while I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I cannot sympathise with the terms of his amendment, which would entrench the role of the BBC board of governors. I am on record as opposing the existence of the BBC board of governors, for reasons that I shall advance as I proceed.
	The hon. Gentleman deserves great credit for having studied with care the document that the BBC has issued and which Mr. Davies has sent to a number of us. The hon. Gentleman spotted a reference to all of us who pay the licence fee as "shareholders". If we were shareholders, there would be a company meeting. If there were a company meeting, we would have the right to state our views and, what is more, the chairman and the governors would have to respond to them.
	In my experience, both as an individual and as Chairman of the Select Committee, the BBC is not interested in the views of the public or of Members of Parliament. I intervened on the hon. Member for South Suffolk to refer to one episode, when the Committee was considering the BBC proposal—not yet then implemented—to remove "Yesterday in Parliament" from FM, which was a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the charter. The chairman of the BBC, Sir Christopher Bland, said that for him to yield to the request that the BBC delay removal would be political interference in the BBC. It did so happen that the BBC later—not much later—decided, because the audience had fallen so much, to transfer the programme back again. We were right all along, and if the chairman had listened to us, he would not have made that mistake.
	I have previously raised, from the very spot where I stand now, the deplorable BBC programme "The Big Ticket". I have always argued that the BBC is behaving anomalously in paying Camelot for the rights to broadcast lottery results rather than being paid, as Radio Telefis Eireann is paid. When the BBC decided to stage that programme, I pointed out firmly that that clearly violated the charter in that the BBC was promoting commercial activity by a privately owned company. I was ignored. I received correspondence demonstrating that the BBC seriously regretted the line that I had taken. Then, the BBC board of governors accepted that it was wrong to broadcast that programme and abandoned it.
	For that reason, among others, I agree with the argument of the hon. Member for South Suffolk but do not agree with his remedy. The BBC board of governors was sufficiently supine not to interfere in either of those matters. The reason for that is that the board is not a professional group of people who have knowledge of communications. The people on the board are picked at random. They were picked at random by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office, and I cannot say that my party has done a great deal better.
	There is a great deal of tokenism in appointments to the board of governors. I am sure that all the people who sit on it are extraordinarily worthy individuals, but I cannot understand why, for example, the chief executive of Lambeth borough council was regarded as a person who should participate in the running of the biggest broadcaster in the United Kingdom and one of the most important broadcasting organisations in the world.
	During the past two weeks, there have been two blatant violations of the watershed. First, there was the breakfast programme in which Ali G participated, regaling a 9 am audience with a stream of filth and obscenity. The BBC apologised, but so far as I know not a single member of the BBC board of governors has taken any view on that matter—certainly not publicly. Next, Stephen Fry compered the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards the other Sunday. The broadcast started before the watershed, and again we had a stream of inexcusable obscenity. It went over the watershed, but began before it. We have heard not a peep out of the BBC board of governors on either episode, or on a range of other matters.
	I do not believe in censorship. Before and since coming to the House, I have campaigned against it. I am against theatrical censorship. I am against censorship of the cinema. I am against censorship of broadcasting, except in the sense that I believe that the protection of children is a duty of adults until those children are old enough and mature enough to think for themselves. The only activities in which I have ever participated in regard to censorship, including when the House dealt with film when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary, have related to children.
	If the BBC board of governors cannot even perform a role in protecting children, what on earth is it for? It does not—heaven help us—run the BBC, because that is run by a partnership of the chairman and the director general. It cannot even exercise that role to make the BBC accountable for what it is supposed to be doing.

Michael Fabricant: It is clear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's views must be shared by the chairman of the BBC, who, if I may put words in his mouth, recognises that the board of governors may, on occasion, have been supine. Nevertheless, Gavyn Davies has introduced the document "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age", in which he seeks to persuade us that the board of governors will become proactive in governing the BBC and its board of management. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that will be achieved?

Gerald Kaufman: I am sure that Mr. Davies means well and understands that there is a problem. I am sure that he is doing his best to address himself to that problem in an effort to save the way in which the BBC is governed at present. I am afraid that those efforts will not work. He was good enough to send me a copy of the document, but what we have is a series of regulatory rules for the BBC board of governors, laid down on its behalf by the chairman. The regulation is not external in any way. It is internal—so much as, and no more than, the BBC itself feels it needs.

James Purnell: My right hon. Friend's argument is interesting, but there is a common misconception that the BBC falls totally outside the scope of Ofcom. He will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the BBC would be subject to the rule of the Broadcasting Standards Commission on issues of obscenity. A complaint could be made to the BSC or to Ofcom. Ofcom would have no powers in relation to ITV or Channel 4 that it did not also have over the BBC.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend is highly knowledgeable about these matters, but I do not need to be reminded of what the White Paper said or of what the proposals are.
	The situation is simple. If, under the Independent Television Commission—soon to be absorbed into Ofcom, which will subsume its powers—there is a violation of, say, the statute governing Channel 4 or of the watershed, the ITC can take action against the broadcaster. When "Brookside" dealt, well before the watershed, with incest, the ITC intervened. When, under Mr. Dyke, ITV wanted to shift "News at Ten" to allow it free evenings to broadcast more adult material, the ITC stopped it. When ITV tried again and succeeded, the ITC, having caved in, came back and forced the programme back into place.
	Not only the terrestrial channels, but all commercial channels are under the ITC, and will come under Ofcom. In the case of a broadcast on MTV to which the ITC took exception, the ITC imposed a heavy fine on MTV for violating the watershed. There is no external sanction of any kind on the BBC, and under the Bill there will be no external sanction of any kind. Last week, representatives of the Broadcasting Standards Commission came before our Select Committee and told us that they were looking into the Stephen Fry episode, but all that they can do is to administer a slap on the wrist.
	I shall tell my hon. Friend one reason why the present regime is entirely unacceptable. I am not in favour of fines and castigations, but if there is a regime of regulation that is enforceable, it makes those who are responsible for the programmes—with whose freedom I do not wish to interfere—aware that there is a sanction, which causes them to be slightly more wary. Let us face it: people broadcasting on the BBC do not give a damn when they violate the watershed. Nothing happens to them. There is no external regulator to say that something should have happened to them, so they will go on violating the watershed with impunity and the BBC spokesperson will say that the BBC received, say, only six complaints.
	If there is an external regulator, even if that regulator is not heavy-handed, there is an awareness within the organisation that external regulation exists. There is no such awareness at the BBC, because all my experience in all the time that I have been in the House is that the BBC board of governors lies flat and allows itself to be walked over by whichever director general is in power at the time.
	I cannot support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, not because I do not believe that the BBC should come within the scope of Ofcom—which I do—but because all his amendments are about the BBC board of governors, and I regard it as anomalous and antiquated that in 2002, in a multi-channel environment, with convergence a factor, with huge competition, and when the BBC can spend £20 million on a channel watched by 11,000 people, the BBC's governance should be based on the duopoly of the chairman and the director general, with a supine, inexpert board of governors. It is utterly against the interests of the BBC.

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I will give way in a moment.
	By contrast, all the other broadcasting organisations are run—efficiently or inefficiently—by experts in their field. It could very well be said that, given the current travails of ITV, the people in charge are not running it all that well, but at least they are subject to the sanction of the market. Indeed, the breakdown of negotiations between Granada and Carlton was due to the fact that a leak led to a leap in Granada shares and there was not time to get the agreement as speedily as was necessary to satisfy stock exchange regulations. No one in this world, whatever they think of what is broadcast by Sky Digital—although I consider that a great deal of it is high quality, and its news has just won two awards when the BBC's news is faltering and ITN is in a sad state—could say that Sky Digital is not aware of market requirements. The constant technological advances on Sky, such as the advance of Sky interactive, and many other forms of convergence, are being made because those broadcasters know that they must cater to a market.
	The BBC is not immune to such pressures, but it is utterly immune to the necessity for awareness of such pressures. That is why the view that I have held for a considerable time, and from which I do not regard—

Brian White: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: If my hon. Friend will allow me for a moment, I should like to make progress.
	I cannot support the amendments because I believe that the present structure of the BBC is utterly out of date in the world in which we are living, let alone the world in which we are about to live. The BBC should have an executive chairman instead of the type of chairman that it has—I am not commenting on Mr. Davies as an individual. It should have a chief executive—not a director general, who is an unanswerable boss. Instead of this tokenistic board of governors, it should have a board—

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I will give way to my hon. Friend soon.
	The BBC should have a board of directors consisting of people who know about broadcasting, technology and convergence. When, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, we have further discussions approaching the charter, the Government must address themselves to such matters, because we cannot go on as we are.

Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend enormously for giving way, and it is a delight to hear such a nuanced and moderate set of views on the BBC.

John Bercow: And understated.

Chris Bryant: Indeed, understated views on the BBC.
	Mr. Alasdair Milne, the former director general of the BBC, who was, as I understand it, sacked by the governors of the BBC, would be surprised to hear of their supine nature. Would my right hon. Friend like to suggest ways forward to enable broadcasters to prevent people from saying on live programmes things that they might not want to have said? Is it not difficult to regulate after the event?

Gerald Kaufman: I am astonished at my hon. Friend because he is an expert on these matters. I knew Mr. Alasdair Milne very well because I worked with him on "That Was The Week That Was". He was not sacked because the board of governors suddenly decided to be a board of governors but because, as so often in the BBC, his face did not fit. That is what happens in the BBC. If someone's face fits, that is okay; if not, they are out.
	I cannot begin to tell the House what respect I have for my hon. Friend, and it amazes me that he seems to be unaware that on a considerable number of programmes "live" does not mean live. The former editor of The Sun, Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, wrote to me last week about his station, where they run live programmes but create a seven-second delay, to ensure that any unacceptable material can be stopped. If my hon. Friend, who is an intellectual and may not devote himself to these matters, watched the live transmissions of "Big Brother" on E4 last summer, he will know that that programme had a similar delay, so that the casual obscenities used by some of the inhabitants of the house were not broadcast during the pre-watershed period. There is a thing called technology, and that technology—

Chris Bryant: A popular beat combo, m'Lud.

Gerald Kaufman: Now, now; just because I have squashed my hon. Friend, he should not heckle.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: No; I will not give way because I have spoken for too long already. [Hon. Members: "No."] I want to conclude.
	Of course there are ways of dealing with these matters. One way, if one is running a breakfast-time programme, is not to ask Mr. Ali G on to the programme because everyone knows what he gets up to. Another way, when the BBC broadcasts the BAFTA awards live, is to read Mr. Stephen Fry's script in advance and tell him that certain things that he is planning to say are not acceptable before the watershed.
	I regard my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) as someone whose expertise far surpasses my amateuristic views on all these matters and I am sad that he should intervene in a way that does not allow me to agree with him.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. He will know that BAFTA also had slight delay with the problems that came to light with Russell Crowe's poem not being broadcast, so why the expletives were not removed is a question for the BBC.

Gerald Kaufman: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although I wish that I had been able to hear Russell Crowe's poem; it may well be the best performance that he has ever given.
	Mr. Gavyn Davies has proposed, with some desperation, that the BBC should find a new way to regulate itself, but that is an example of "quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?". That is not acceptable to me, so I very much hope that, between now and when the main Bill is introduced, the Government will consider the anomaly into which the BBC might be placed. I ask them to reread the report, issued by the Select Committee on towards the end of the previous Parliament, in which we clearly advocated the subsumption of accountability for the BBC in what is now to be called Ofcom, which we proposed four years ago, and consider a way to remedy the situation, which is not acceptable.

Nick Harvey: Until the draft communications Bill is published, until a Joint Select Committee has had a chance to grill witnesses on the Bill's proposals and until Parliament begins to debate the Bill next Session, the White Paper that was published about 15 months ago remains the most definitive statement of Government policy on the issue. It is worth remembering that the White Paper's proposals did not put the BBC outwith Ofcom's remit. What the White Paper referred to as tier 1 and tier 2 regulation involved putting significant aspects of the BBC's operations under Ofcom; what it referred to as tier 3 predominantly involved self-regulation.
	The backstop powers on self-regulation remain an issue, and a separate issue is who will approve future proposals that the BBC may have to develop new services. I am absolutely clear in my mind that Parliament—or, in a practical sense, the Secretary of State—should retain the authority to allow the BBC to develop new services. The BBC will continue to be funded by the licence for the foreseeable future, so it is an absolutely unique institution in that sense. I do not believe that Ofcom should make decisions on the creation of new services—its responsibilities are predominantly competition and protecting consumer interests, which I shall distinguish from the public interest.
	I am absolutely clear in my mind that the authority to allow new services should remain with Parliament and the Secretary of State, so the remaining issue is who should oversee—the backstop powers—the tier 3 self-regulation of the BBC. It could be argued that Parliament and the Secretary of State, the BBC governors or Ofcom should have those powers.
	I share many of the reservations expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, about leaving the powers with the BBC governors. I am not prepared to take a view on whether those powers should be given to Ofcom until we have resolved what its nature, characteristics and purposes will be, and under what broad remit and instructions it will act.
	For that reason, we would prejudge this issue if we were to put the cart before the horse with this relatively minor paving Bill and assume that the powers will be given to Ofcom. The official Opposition spokesman was wrong to suggest that we were in the last-chance saloon—nothing could be further from the truth. It is perfectly obvious that the sensible time to deliberate on that issue will be when we debate the communications Bill in the next Session.

Chris Bryant: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have a niggling concern about the process of confirming any new service that the BBC governors may like to propose. I am still uncertain whether the Secretary of State should decide and Ofcom provide advice, or whether it should be the other way round, but the more substantive issue that we need to consider for the future is what constitutes a new service. It is easy to say that BBC3 or BBC4 is a new service; it is a new channel in a traditional system that we understand. However, I have been troubled for a long time about one of the gaps in the market: the fact that religion is one of the drivers for internet use. Religion is relatively low in the list, but it is a driver none the less. The BBC has a reputation for independence, yet is has no religious—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a mini speech.

Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the impact of new BBC services will not be quite so predictable as in the past, because of the speed of technological change. That is the basis on which creating a single regulator has been proposed, but we have not, as yet, thrashed out very clearly what Ofcom's character will be.
	There is a slight culture clash between the regulation that the Department of Trade and Industry has traditionally sponsored and that which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or, before it, the Home Office has tended to favour. I am concerned that Ofcom may be very much more a creature of regulation as the DTI understands it than of regulation as the DCMS or, before it, the Home Office has understood it. If that were to prove correct and if Ofcom were much more concerned with economic considerations, with theoretical models of competition policing and with a narrow definition of the consumer interest, I would have grave misgivings about it being responsible for taking some of the decisions now under discussion.
	There is a difference between the consumer interest and the public interest. It can be argued that the consumer interest is served by things that are popular with consumers being on offer at all times, whereas, to return to the point that was being made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), the public interest might be better served by having more religious broadcasting. Those interests are simply not one and the same thing. If Ofcom is to have wide responsibilities for determining what constitutes the public interest, that needs to be written into the legislation that establishes Ofcom far more explicitly than anything in the White Paper led me to believe the Government envisaged or intended.
	The development of broadband internet services is an example of the consumer interest and the public interest diverging. Oftel has got the regulation of that issue horribly wrong and has completely lost sight of the public interest because it has taken a very narrow economic view of what constitutes the consumer interest. It has been so concerned to get the economic model of competition theory precisely right that it has significantly held back the development of broadband internet communications in the United Kingdom.
	If Ofcom is to get deeply into matters of public interest, that needs to be stipulated not only in terms of what powers it might have over the BBC, but how it will ensure that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—or channels 6, 7 and 8 if they are established—perform under whatever remit they are given. I will not decide whether Ofcom is the right body to have backstop powers for the BBC until we have hammered out some of the arguments and know much more about the colour of Ofcom.
	I am not saying that I will die in the ditch to defend the status quo. The BBC is far from perfect. Some of the regulatory mechanisms that govern the BBC are self-evidently flawed, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton gave examples of that. The BBC is more inclined to be impervious to criticism than commercial broadcasters because their regulators have had the power to instruct more remedies. In the new regime that we anticipate, the BBC must be more susceptible to instructions from external regulation.

Derek Wyatt: I can get the BBC on my computer, but as I do not have a television licence for that I should be arrested and locked up.

Chris Bryant: So the law says.

Derek Wyatt: Indeed, and there are many women in Holloway who have not paid the licence fee. However, to return to my substantive point, convergence means just that. We need to consider how the licence fee gets collected and the fact that under the current regulatory system there is no one to whom the BBC can complain. It needs to be covered by Ofcom. Its funding needs to change because it cannot collect the fee if people can receive its transmissions through broadband. It is an issue.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The BBC will be covered by Ofcom in a considerable sense. The material issue of concern relates to the backstop powers that determine whether it fulfils the statement of programming that it proposes as part of the tier 3 regulation. The issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers can be taken to Ofcom under the proposals as laid out in the White Paper.
	If the BBC and its regulation is far from perfect, so is the system of the BBC governors. I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who spoke for longer than I expected. However, it makes no sense to put all that right in a paving Bill. I am not even convinced it would make sense to crack open that nut in the communications Bill, although I am open to persuasion. It would probably make more sense to hammer out who has the backstop powers and get Ofcom up and running for two or three years before we resolve the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred when we deal with the charter renewal in 2006.
	The BBC has a proud heritage and a strong position in the world. Of course the rest of the broadcasting sector wants the BBC regulated by Ofcom—you bet they do! It is delighted at the thought that the BBC, unique though its history and position are, will be put into the hands of a regulator whose views may be fashioned entirely by economic rather than public interest considerations.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman exposes one of the hypocrisies of the commercial sector, but there is another. The one aspect of the market in which commercial broadcasters do not want the BBC to be involved is advertising. They fear that the BBC, which is a popular broadcaster even now with its dwindled and dwindling audience, will take advertising away from them. Apart from the hon. Gentleman, myself and a few others, no one else who is engaged in the debate is totally objective.

Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about advertising. In addition, commercial broadcasters would take exception to my suggestion that Ofcom should have written into its remit more explicit public interest powers than the White Paper anticipates. The last thing the commercial sector wants is for its activities to be regulated by Ofcom with reference to a more widely defined public interest consideration. It cannot have it both ways. If the BBC is not going to invade its advertising market but remain essentially a public service broadcaster with a public interest objective and a public service remit, it cannot be treated and regulated in the same way as the commercial sector.
	There are big issues to resolve before it makes sense to do what the amendments suggest and set the cart before the horse. Let us hammer out what Ofcom is going to be and determine that it will be fit to take on the powers. Let us not prejudge the issue and throw the BBC to the wolves.

Brian White: The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has obviously read my speech, 90 per cent. of which I have had to cut because I agree with him entirely.
	I tried to make it clear in Committee that this is a communications Bill, not a broadcasting Bill, but we are none the less falling into the same trap on this occasion. I fear that the amendment could perpetuate the argument about the BBC to the detriment of the communications industry and the establishment of Ofcom. That would do major damage. Ofcom would become dominated by arguments about the BBC and the role of the board of governors. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) may be right about the deterioration of the BBC's standards in its terrestrial news broadcasts, he should recognise the innovative and superb work that it has done on its web pages and on BBC news online, which marks a tremendous step forward.
	Ofcom's role is a real issue in this paving Bill, but it should not become dominated by arguments about regulation of the BBC. The key issues—Ofcom's relevance to the European Union framework directive; how it will interact with existing regulators and the European regulatory group; and market dominance, to which the hon. Member for North Devon referred—will be subsumed by arguments about the BBC.
	I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who argued that the way to kill the argument is to cover the BBC in the Ofcom paving Bill. It is important that consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny identify that as a key issue for public consultation as part of the communications Bill, but to address it now will cause the problems that the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid. We must not deal with that problem at the expense of the rest of the communications industry.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) has been a powerful advocate for the other elements to which Ofcom will have regard. As he rightly says, broadcasting is not the only one to consider. However, I disagree with him and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) when they say that now is not the time to debate whether we include the BBC under the auspices of Ofcom.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to clause 6, which sets out what is meant by the "existing regulator". The clause refers to
	"the Broadcasting Standards Commission . . . the Director General of Telecommunications"—
	otherwise known as Oftel—
	"the Independent Television Commission . . . the Radio Authority".
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has argued long and cogently, as has the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that there is an omission, and that the BBC and its governors ought to be included. They are right.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East says that to include the BBC would result in continuing arguments within Ofcom about BBC issues, but that is not the case. The big argument is whether Ofcom would control the BBC in the sense of the third tier having access to the BBC. Once the BBC came under the auspices of Ofcom, there would be no further argument because, as several hon. Members have said, on the whole the BBC does a pretty good job. At times, of course, the BBC has shown itself to be a bad governor of its own operations, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton gave two recent and powerful examples of that. But the BBC has a unique role in British broadcasting, and indeed in world broadcasting, and bringing it under the auspices of Ofcom would strengthen it, not weaken it.
	This is the very time at which we should be debating that matter. The hon. Member for North Devon is utterly wrong when he says that this is not the time and place to be discussing the BBC, but he is certainly right when he says that we will be discussing it when a communications Bill comes before the House in a year or so, if indeed it appears.
	Why should the BBC be included? Recently, the Scottish Media Group made submissions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and to the Select Committee about the method of measuring the degree of cross-media ownership. How does one compare the radio listener with the television viewer? Does one equal the other? The formula that the Scottish Media Group came up with is simple—it uses overall revenue. Of course, the BBC's revenue comes from the licence fee, and not from the sale of advertising time. It receives a small degree of revenue from the world sales of programming, but only to the tune of a net profit of £50 million. The point is that its total revenue is about £2.5 billion; it is a major player. To say that it should be ignored is an insult not only to the BBC but to its listeners and viewers.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton began to paint a picture of how the royal charter came about. Let me briefly add to that and remind colleagues that the BBC started as the British Broadcasting Company in 1922. It operated five separate radio stations around the United Kingdom. One was just down the road at Savoy Hill 2LO in London, and there were others in Bournemouth, Leeds and Birmingham. At that time, the BBC was the only broadcaster, and the idea behind the royal charter was to create a unique monopoly position for it. The royal charter was wholly appropriate at that time. It was advocated by the then managing director of the company, Sir John Reith, who later became Lord Reith.
	What was appropriate in 1926 is not appropriate now. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, what might have been appropriate five or six years ago is not appropriate now because of the changes in technology, in delivery and in the many different platforms by which television and radio can be delivered to viewers and listeners.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman was present at a sitting of the Select Committee the other day when I made a point that I think it may be useful to place on record in the Chamber. The BBC is the only organisation in this country, in either the private or the public sector, which is organised and governed in precisely the same way as it was 75 years ago. No other public sector organisation—not the NHS, which is not as old as the BBC, nor the pension system, nor the income support system—is administered as it was only a few years ago. The private sector changes all the time. The BBC says, "Stick to the way in which we were organised and financed on 1 January 1927."

Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. It is not only a question of the length of time during which the structure has remained static; what is even more extraordinary is the background of the degree to which the broadcasting environment has changed. Even if one compares the BBC with the NHS, established in 1948, one finds that the needs and structure of the NHS have changed less than the broadcasting environment because of all the technological changes in broadcasting. The idea that what was suitable when the BBC had a monopoly in 1927 is suitable now is risible and has to be addressed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if it is not dealt with now, it will have to be tackled by Parliament some time, because in June 2006, when the BBC charter has to be renewed, surely that will not be done yet again by a compliant Government.
	That would be wrong, primarily because of perception. It is utterly wrong that the BBC should be perceived to be its own judge and jury in so many different issues. The chairman of the BBC clearly recognises that point. By publishing the document, "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age", he seeks to give greater independence and more muscle to the board of governors.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton rightly points out that the whole history of the BBC—and to anyone who argues with this point I commend the excellent books on the subject by Lord Asa Briggs—shows that the board of governors tends to be compliant to the director general and the board of management. Perhaps the changes proposed by the chairman will help somewhat, but I do not think that they will be a complete solution. They will certainly not give the appearance of the BBC being accountable to an outside body, and that is the whole point.
	Two areas are addressed in "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age". One is programme content and the other is fair trading. There have been numerous claims in the past few years that the BBC has used its unique position, funded by the licence payer, to trade unfairly against commercial organisations that have to operate in the real world, where their revenue is generated by sales. Those claims may or may not be true, but people who make them continue to believe that the BBC is not addressing the problem. My God, if I were chairman of the BBC, I would welcome Ofcom's independent scrutiny and judgment on that issue. But what can the chairman do? What can the director general do? All he can say is, "We have had an internal inquiry, and it found us innocent." Well, innocent they may be, but people do not believe it because they do not believe any organisation that is its own judge and jury.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman comments on how those commercial activities might be perceived to work directly against the interests of other commercial organisations, but surely it is anticipated that Ofcom will be given precisely the relevant powers in the lower tiers mentioned in the White Paper.

Michael Fabricant: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is for that very reason that the issue is now being addressed by the BBC. The BBC perceives that fair trading does not come under tiers 1 and 2, which is precisely why it is making changes to the board of governors to address that issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not seen the letter by Gavyn Davies, which appears to have been circulated quite widely—

Nick Harvey: indicated dissent

Michael Fabricant: I see that he has not, perhaps because his is a minority party. After the debate, I shall photocopy the letter and put it on the Board for him, so that he can see that fair trading is an issue of which the BBC is conscious, because it has been criticised in the past on that ground. I think that the BBC would welcome coming into the ambit of Ofcom—and it ought to be so. Given that BBC revenues total £2.5 billion and it represents a major proportion of British broadcasting, it would be anathema were it not to come within Ofcom's ambit.
	The BBC gives many reasons why it should not become a part of Ofcom. One such reason is that it occupies a unique position—but no one here today has argued that the BBC should not continue to occupy a unique position. I half expected the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to argue about the way in which the BBC is funded, but he chose not to do so today. I shall not do so either, because for all sorts of economic reasons I do not believe that the BBC can be privatised, nor do I believe that British broadcasting would be assisted if it were.
	No one is arguing that the BBC's unique position should be weakened in any way. In fact, as I said, I believe that the BBC's position would be strengthened by its becoming a part of Ofcom. The BBC says that its position is unique because it is a public service broadcaster—but as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, so are Channel 4 and S4C, and many would say that many aspects of ITV broadcasting constitute public service broadcasting, yet they willingly come within Ofcom's ambit.
	Time has moved on since 1 January 1927. Even Parliament in its procedures is changing; perhaps the next few months hold radical changes to the way in which we operate. It seems to me that only one organisation, uniquely in the United Kingdom, has not changed: the BBC. The BBC is unique not because of the way in which it is funded, nor because of the fact that it is a public service broadcaster, but because since 1 January 1927 it has succeeded in not changing its structure, despite the fact that it exists in a dynamic and changing world.

John Grogan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that there were two objective people in the Chamber tonight: himself and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I shall take up and reinforce three points made by the latter.
	First, the hon. Gentleman said, and I agree, that this is not the last opportunity Parliament will have to determine the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton will see to it that in years to come we spend many happy hours discussing such matters. Not only is there the prospect of the communications Bill, but there is to be a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on that Bill and further opportunities during the run-up to charter renewal.
	The hon. Member for North Devon is right to say that the character of the Ofcom regulator and its relationships with not only the BBC but other public service broadcasters cannot be determined until the main Bill is produced. It is not clear what powers Ofcom will have in tier 3 regulation—the backstop powers he mentioned—in relation to ITV, never mind the BBC.
	The chairman of the BBC has appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee since Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton refers to himself as an amateur; perhaps he is, but he is also a class act who draws in the crowds. I could hardly get into the room that day—it was heaving. I just managed to squeeze into the corner. The chairman of the BBC began by saying that he agreed with much that my right hon. Friend had said on Second Reading. He said of the BBC:
	"In fact, if anything, it should be regulated rather more robustly"
	than other broadcasters,
	"given its unique access to the licence fee."
	He added that on
	"one or two issues of detail . . . I think there are nuances of difference between us"—
	that is, between my right hon. Friend and the BBC. Nevertheless, the BBC accepts that it will be subject to more regulation under Ofcom than at any time before.
	It is worth running through the three tiers. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned economic regulation. The chairman of the BBC was unambiguous, telling the Select Committee:
	"In the case of economic regulation, basic standards and quotas (Tiers 1 and 2) the BBC will be treated just like any other broadcaster and will be fully within OFCOM's remit . . . that is only right and proper and we welcome this change."
	For the first time, the BBC will be subject to regional programme quotas and to ensuring that news is in prime time. In terms of its economic responsibilities, it will be very much under Ofcom's wing. The hon. Member for North Devon put his finger on the issue when he referred to Ofcom's backstop powers and any role it may have in the creation of new channels. I, too, feel suspicious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned advertising: it is not only commercial broadcasters who do not like the idea of the BBC advertising—parents dislike the idea as well. They welcome new BBC children's channels because of the absence of excessive advertising during programmes that are specifically for children. That is one of the great attractions of the BBC. Many listeners to Radio 1 and Radio 2 hope that the Opposition do not decide to adopt a policy of privatisation of those stations. People like to listen to radio programmes and watch sport on television without interruptions from advertising.
	Ofcom will primarily be an economic regulator and a light-touch regulator of public service broadcasters other than the BBC. Can it combine the skills needed for light-touch regulation of ITV and Channel 4, which will be far more unregulated than ever before, with the very different skills needed to ensure that our main public service broadcaster continues year on year to produce the public service programmes on which its reputation depends and on which its support in the House and the country depends? Can Ofcom really combine those two roles?
	As I said, the House will spend many happy hours discussing those issues. There is no need at this stage, during the establishment of the shadow Ofcom, to tear up the broadcasting ecology that has served our nation for many years. Changes will have to be made, and the White Paper mentions measures that will fundamentally change the way in which the BBC operates, and its relationship with the regulators affecting it, but we should preserve all that is good in the BBC. I am glad to see that many hon. Members acknowledge that there is much that is good and that must be preserved.

Glenda Jackson: I will not detain the House long. I oppose the amendments, essentially for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It seems to be putting the cart before the horse to attempt to introduce that kind of regulation under such a small paving Bill.
	I leapt to my feet essentially to take issue with the idea that the BBC is a unique organisation on any level other than the way it is funded. It is no longer unique as a public service broadcaster. Previous speakers have referred to the BBC's capacity to introduce new channels. The BBC is not introducing new channels; it is introducing additional programmes. I regret that I feel impelled to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has said. I find it outrageous that the BBC has seen fit to introduce its new, fourth channel which has been funded by everyone who has to buy a television licence in this country and yet is accessible only to that minority who have digital television. I do not exclude the commercial operators of the service when I say that the quality of the programmes is execrable in the main. They tend to be based on repeats—certainly that is true of the programmes that the BBC is broadcasting—and remarkably banal.
	Regrettably, in this country, culture, art, intellectual practices and expertise are still in many instances regarded as minority interests. I believe that the BBC's new channel will mean an even greater reduction in such programmes and a reduction of interest in its existing channels. For the BBC to be able to avoid what I understood was one of the central planks of its existing, supposedly unique, nature—that of serving minority interests—seems to highlight how over the past decade, if not longer, it has believed that it meets its unique situation exclusively by virtue of the way it is funded, and increasingly forgets its public service broadcasting responsibility.
	The BBC used to be an international byword for quality programmes. It gives me no pleasure to say that I think that reputation has been lost in leaps and bounds, not least in respect of its news broadcasts. As someone said to me, "If you want to know what has happened, you turn to Sky." It is almost impossible to get any kind of up-to-date news on the BBC. It spent an absolute fortune on introducing the 24-hour news broadcasting programme which, on its own analysis, is watched internationally and nationally by such a small audience that it does not even come up on the percentage scale. I strongly agree about the backstop for how the BBC adapts to the future, when we will see ever greater convergence between broadcasting and communications.
	I was particularly grateful that the Government introduced free licences for 75-year-olds because of the litany that I inevitably heard from my pensioners. They objected to paying the licence fee because they were categoric that they never watched any BBC programme on any of the BBC channels. I would hate to see the day dawn when that feeling was more general across the country.
	For the past decade, the BBC seems to have lost belief in its own identity. It believes that it has to compete with commercial stations so that it is not unique but similar in its competitive activities and programming to the commercial sector.
	We have in television—one aspect of broadcasting and communications—a unique medium that has never been exploited to the full. It has never brought the greatest possible benefits to the millions of people who watch it world wide. The BBC could, perhaps, begin to forge a new path. I may be maligning the director general and the board of governors, but I think they would love to be able to have advertising in their programmes. However, if they are increasingly forced into a corner so that the process takes longer, more people are involved and the product is produced by someone else more speedily and economically, it will lose its position as the great pinnacle of broadcasting excellence. The BBC is no longer in that position, and I would hate to see it slide even further down that slippery slope. I sincerely hope it will rise again, and the amendment will do nothing to encourage the BBC to aim higher.

Kim Howells: We have had a wide-ranging debate about how a relationship between Ofcom and the BBC might look after the scrutiny and debate by Parliament and the Joint Committee of both Houses of a substantive communications Bill. We devoted a number of hours to this subject in Committee, and I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) put it, that we will spend many more happy hours discussing this in the communications Bill. I am not one to throw a wet blanket over such enjoyable occasions, but the Bill is not about that—it is about setting up Ofcom.
	Taken together, amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 would make the BBC an "existing regulator" for certain purposes in the Bill, alongside the other regulators. The amendments are the same as those put forward in Committee, so they have been discussed at great length. I made it clear then that the purpose of the Bill is only to set up Ofcom and its initial functions. At that time, I circulated a detailed briefing note to hon. Members so that they were clear on the Government's policy on the BBC and Ofcom, as set out in the White Paper. I appreciate that the BBC's place in the new regulatory structure and its relationship with Ofcom is the subject of much debate, and so it should be. However, the appropriate time for a detailed discussion on the issue will be when the draft communications Bill is published in the spring.
	I resist the amendments because clause 2 gives Ofcom the power that it needs to facilitate or secure the modification of any proposals concerning the BBC. Under subsection (1), Ofcom has the power to do whatever is appropriate in preparing for its task. The BBC's charter will allow it to prepare for implementing our legislative proposals. The phrase
	"whether by transfers from the existing regulators or otherwise"
	has been included in subsection (3). That means that Ofcom's power is not limited to transfers from existing regulators, as defined in the Bill, but can also include transfers from the BBC. I am satisfied that the powers in the Bill are sufficient to cover the points that have been debated. They will allow Ofcom and the BBC to make preparations for implementing the new regulatory regime. They do not prevent proper debate of the exact relationship between Ofcom and the BBC when the time comes, nor do they pre-empt the outcome of that debate. I therefore oppose the amendments.

Tim Yeo: This has been an excellent debate, and I am grateful to all those who have taken part in it.
	I should like to reply to the Minister's comments. We have not brought forward the amendment at this stage because it is the last opportunity to do so. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was wrong to claim that I said it was. It clearly is not, as the Minister has explained. There will be an opportunity to do so under the forthcoming communications Bill. However, this seems to be the most appropriate opportunity, not least because this paving Bill lists the regulators whose functions are to be taken over by Ofcom and because it will be much more sensible to have the debate about Ofcom's functions when we know what organisations it will be responsible for. I am afraid that it is those who are resisting the amendment who are in danger of getting the cart and the horse the wrong way round, not those who share our views.
	I am sorry that we seem unlikely to have the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) with us in the Lobby. He is a powerful advocate of the merits of an external regulator, and he was right to question the effectiveness of the present accountability arrangements of the BBC. He made it clear that he does not want the BBC to be ignored by Ofcom—far from it. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me is one of means, rather than ends. In due course, perhaps, there will be opportunities to try to reach a shared position.
	I am sorry also that we will not have the support of the Liberals this evening. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) seemed unable to decide what the party's view should be. He said that that would have to wait until Ofcom had been debated in more detail, but that misses the point. The question is one of principle: whether we believe that the BBC should be regulated in a manner similar to the other organisations operating in the field. The Liberal party clearly does not. It wishes to preserve a privileged position, for whatever reason, for the BBC. The clue to the Liberal position was in the dying phrase of the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he said that putting the BBC within the remit of Ofcom would be throwing it to the wolves. That did not suggest to me that he would approach the future debates in an open-minded manner.
	On the contribution of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North–East (Brian White), I entirely accept that there are many other issues in the Bill, but this is the one that is before the House. That is why I have been addressing it. There will be a chance to address or return to some of the others later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is a powerful advocate of the case that I have tried to advance. When I listened to his views, it made me think that on this issue I had been right to say what I had said earlier.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), like a number of those who oppose the amendment, seemed to assume that including the BBC within Ofcom would somehow stop the governors carrying out their function of scrutinising how the BBC was meeting or failing to meet its public service obligations. It would do nothing of the sort. The governors would still have that function. They would be the first stop and Ofcom would be the backstop, to use the language that others have adopted.
	The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) criticised the way the BBC is moving away from a strict public service role, perhaps in pursuit of higher ratings. I am sure that that is a widely held concern. My only regret is that the hon. Lady does not conclude from it that some change in the present regulatory arrangements is needed, and needed urgently.
	As I explained at the outset, amendment No. 7 is the crucial amendment in the group. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 6.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
	'(aa) the BBC Board of Governors.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule
	 — 
	Further Provision About OFCOM

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
	', up to a maximum of £10 million in any one financial year.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 11, line 6, leave out "and at such rates".
	No. 21, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
	'(3) The rate of interest on any sums advanced under this paragraph shall be the same as the lowest rate determined by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 (c. 13) in respect of similar loans made out of the National Loans Fund on the day the advance is made.'.

Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to speak to these amendments, which arise from a debate that we had late in the day during our happy hours in Committee, to which the Minister has referred. The Government should address several of the issues that arose.
	Amendment No. 22 would set a maximum of £10 million of projected expenditure by Ofcom in any one financial year. That is important because it is not guaranteed that the main communications Bill, for which we wait with anticipation, will reach the statute book. We may, therefore, find ourselves in the regrettable situation in which Ofcom may have to be disbanded. The Bill does not make sufficient provision for that. Amendment No. 32 is purely consequential—the Secretary of State would not set such rates because, under amendment No. 22, a maximum of £10 million would have been set.
	Amendment No. 21 enshrines what the Minister helpfully set out in a letter for the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on 8 February 2002 about what the rate of interest on a loan should be. It is our fervent desire that the rate of interest on sums advanced under this paragraph of the schedule should be the same as the lowest rate determined by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 in respect of similar loans made from the national loans fund on the day of the advance.
	These amendments are important because of the gap left by the helpful comments about clause 5 made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. He said:
	"Subsection (6) deals with the procedures that will apply in relation to the shell Ofcom's assets if . . . it were to be wound up."
	He continued:
	"Paragraph (b) refers to the power to provide for the property rights and liabilities of Ofcom to be divided between different persons."
	The Minister responded:
	"I have told the Committee on a number of occasions that the only source of funding will be loans made to Ofcom by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."
	At column 249, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that
	"the end of the story is that it will be a loan that must be repaid."
	He went on to point out that
	"clause 5 makes absolutely no reference to who will repay the loan that will undoubtedly arise from the operating costs of Ofcom."
	He added:
	"How are the operating costs to be dealt with? The assets and liabilities are dealt with in detail, but the operating costs are not."
	He finally asked:
	"Why not, and who will be liable?"
	The point is that, in giving his explanation to the House, the Minister raised more questions than the Bill answers. At column 250, he claimed that
	"Clause 5 will provide precisely what Opposition Members were arguing for"
	and
	"gives the Secretary of State the power to wind up Ofcom."
	He also said:
	"Other provisions allow property, other assets and liabilities to be transferred to the Secretary of State from Ofcom, the existing regulators or other specified persons."—-[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 February 2002; c. 248-50.]
	In my view, those provisions are not at all clear, which is why I tabled the amendments.

Kim Howells: We debated in some detail in Committee how it is proposed that Ofcom should be funded. It may help the House—and, I hope, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—if I set out again what those arrangements will be.
	As hon. Members will know, the general approach for sectoral regulators is that the cost should be borne by the sector concerned. Indeed, industry recognises that that is part of the cost of doing business and is generally content with that. That arrangement applies to the existing broadcasting and telecommunications regulators, although, in the case of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, half the costs are met by grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	At the start, when Ofcom is preparing to take on its later functions, it will have no fee income from industry. It is the Government's view that the extra cost associated with creating Ofcom should be borne by the sector, but it makes sense for the businesses that are in the sector once the new regime comes into force to finance that cost rather than those which are in the sector today. We therefore envisage that all—or virtually all—of the cost of transition should be financed by a loan to Ofcom made by the Secretary of State. It is intended that that loan will eventually be repaid by Ofcom out of the fee income that it will start to receive when it takes on its regulatory functions.
	I do not believe that a limit should be set in primary legislation on the maximum amount that the Secretary of State can advance to Ofcom, as amendment No. 22 suggests. At this early stage, there is too much uncertainty about how long Ofcom's preparatory stage might last and what practical steps it will need to take to prepare to receive its regulatory functions. Obviously, we all want the transition to the new regulatory regime to be as smooth as possible for all concerned, but it is only when the Ofcom board is in place later this year that it will be able to take decisions on the practical steps.
	It is not necessary to set out in the Bill the level of interest payment on any advance that might be made to Ofcom—the subject of amendments Nos. 32 and 21. As I explained in Committee, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred, the level of interest charged on any advance made by the Secretary of State to Ofcom would be made on the presumption that it should reflect the cost to the Government of borrowing. I therefore oppose the amendments.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. Although I resist his arguments, I believe that we may be able to explore the matter at a later stage. My hon. Friends and I believed that this was the best opportunity to consider the provisions in question, but as the Government are not minded to accept my temptations and agree to the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	'Consumer Panel
	14A(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish a Consumer Panel of 10 members, comprising persons who are neither members nor employees of OFCOM.
	(2) Members will be appointed for four year terms and shall serve a maximum of two consecutive terms.
	(3) Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the Schedule shall apply to the proceedings of the Consumer Panel, but paragraphs 15 and 16 shall not apply and the Consumer Panel shall make other such arrangements for regulating their own procedure as they think fit.
	(4) The Consumer Panel shall—
	(a) research consumers' views and concerns on issues relating to OFCOM's functions,
	(b) publish its advice, conclusions and reports to OFCOM, and
	(c) take due account in its work of the views of consumers with special needs, including those on low incomes or with disabilities.
	(5) The Consumer Panel shall be funded by means of grants from OFCOM.
	(6) The Consumer Panel shall make an annual report of its proceedings and financial position to each House of Parliament.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	'Radio Committee
	14B It shall be a duty of OFCOM to establish a Radio Committee to provide advice to OFCOM about, and carry out functions in relation to, the radio sector.'.
	No. 20, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	'Deregulation Committee
	14C It shall be a duty of OFCOM to establish a Deregulation Committee to provide advice to OFCOM about how relevant proposals about the regulation of communications could be modified to deregulate the communications industry.'.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 12, which relates to the role and constitution of a consumer panel. We wish to see Ofcom establish a consumer panel of 10 members, who would not be members or employees of Ofcom, and who would serve for a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms. In our view, Ofcom should have a duty to have regard to the work of such a panel. The fact that the panel would provide an annual report of its proceedings and financial position to each House of Parliament would ensure its accountability to Parliament.
	Under the provisions of the amendment, the consumer panel would be funded by grants from Ofcom, and would research consumers' views and concerns on issues relating to Ofcom's functions. The panel would publish its advice, conclusions and reports to Ofcom, and its work would take account of the views of consumers with special needs, including those on low incomes or with disabilities. I regret that the amendment on disabilities tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) met with such a lack of response from the Government. In light of that amendment's failure, this amendment takes on additional importance. It would be the rightful role of the consumer panel to have regard to those with special needs and, in particular, those with disabilities. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport supported such a move in its report on the White Paper on communications.
	The White Paper refers to Ofcom's consumer protection role in paragraph 7.4 on page 72, which states:
	"Ofcom will have a principal duty to protect the interests of consumers and will have powers to take action if the industry does not develop an effective consumer protection regime."
	The White Paper makes many other references to consumer protection, and I must ask the Minister why the Bill makes no mention of a consultative panel.
	I also want to speak briefly to amendment No. 13, which invites Ofcom to establish a radio committee to provide advice to Ofcom and to raise issues and problems that are very different from those of television, having regard to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) so eloquently pointed out in Committee and in the House today, the radio sector is of huge importance to the communications and broadcasting industry. A radio committee established under the auspices of Ofcom would be able to consider and advise on all those issues.
	On amendment No. 20, it is the wish of the official Opposition to see a deregulation committee established. Such a committee would advise Ofcom about how the regulation of communications could be modified so as to deregulate the communications industry. If Ofcom is to achieve anything, it must deregulate. It is to replace five existing regulators, if we include the BBC—we would like it to replace six—and will, therefore, be essentially deregulatory in nature. We believe that placing a duty on Ofcom to establish such a deregulation committee is the best possible way to monitor Ofcom's deregulatory activities.

Michael Fabricant: I welcome all the amendments, but especially the one that deals with radio. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and others will know, I have the gravest concern about the possibility of our reverting to the position that obtained in the days of the Independent Broadcasting Authority when the radio division was confined to a few bleak offices in the Brompton road.
	It being Nine o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [14 January] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Howells.]

Anne McIntosh: I feel a certain sadness at this stage. As the Minister said, we have spent many happy hours debating the Bill in Committee and this evening. Despite the sad conclusion that those happy hours have reached, I welcomed the opportunity to consider its remaining stages. Obviously, Opposition Members are disappointed by our failure to carry any of our amendments. We shall have opportunities to return to some of the issues involved but others need to be raised now.
	I remind the House that I have a pecuniary interest in BT, albeit a small one.
	The composition of Ofcom should represent all forms of the media and communications. That applies to board members, officials and staff. We think that appointments should be approved by a parliamentary Committee such as that chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), or alternatively by the Joint Committee that the Government intend to request the House to set up.
	For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), our fervent desire—eloquently expressed by many Members on both sides of the House: I think it struck a chord with certain Labour Back Benchers—was that the BBC's board of governors should have been included in every respect. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that we recognise the public service broadcasting obligations of the BBC's board of governors. It is a bizarre omission that, as we speak, the BBC has no parliamentary accountability. I am sorry that the opportunity offered by the Bill for discussion of that was turned down.
	As I have said, we believe that Ofcom should be a deregulatory organisation with a light touch. We shall monitor developments over the next month, especially in view of the Minister's promise of a communications Bill in the spring. No doubt the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee will work carefully to ensure that the organisation has a light touch and a deregulatory mandate. We shall also take the opportunity to ensure that consideration is given to the needs of those with special requirements and disabilities—the deaf, the blind and many others—and to precisely how the commitment in the White Paper to liaison with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be achieved.
	We are especially keen for the particular needs and interests of the radio sector to be reflected through a radio committee. We had a good discussion in Committee about the needs and concerns of religious broadcasters, although we did not have an opportunity to discuss them this evening. A greater range of frequencies would enable greater choice in religious broadcasting, which both sides of the House would welcome. Other media and forms of communication—such as mobile phones, broadband technology and the internet—should properly have been referred to. Those who represent Ofcom should have regard to those special interests.
	On financing, loans should be set at the interest rate referred to by the Minister in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and the Secretary of State should set a limit on the expenditure that Ofcom can incur. The Minister should also offer a commitment that, if the main Bill never appears and Ofcom is wound up, the somewhat complicated procedure that he set out in Committee will be simplified so that even hon. Members can readily understand it and explain it to all concerned outside this House.
	I consider the BBC one of the finest British institutions. It holds a special place of affection in the hearts and minds of the British people, including me. However, as I have said, it is our fervent desire that, if one regulator is to replace existing regulators, it should replace all six, including the BBC board of governors. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, initially the board of governors will monitor all first and second-tier responsibilities. However, in the light of its public service obligations, there should be one rule and a one-size-fits-all regulator. For that reason, the BBC should be included.
	I make a special plea for the ongoing delivery of regional programming and news editions by the BBC, ITV and other companies. As Members of this House, we are keen that such programming be improved, and that the high standards that we enjoy across the United Kingdom be maintained. I recognise only too clearly that we are in the midst of perhaps the longest and deepest recession for some time. Advertising revenues are down, which has put especial pressure on the delivery of regional programming and news editions.
	As we have said at various stages in the Bill's consideration, it is the fervent desire of all Opposition Members that parliamentary accountability be paramount. Ofcom's committees, its annual report and the preparation and presentation of its annual accounts should be considered by the relevant body of each House of Parliament. Its annual accounts should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and its annual report should be considered by the relevant Select Committees.
	Mindful of a possible Government reshuffle this Easter, may I take this opportunity to wish the Minister a fair wind? Perhaps he will be transported to another Department, or to a more elevated position.
	In its lengthy, considerable and interesting deliberations, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report on the communications White Paper raised the question of merging the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry. There are many merits in that argument, and I could think of many people who were less fit for that position than the Minister.
	I hope that the Minister will take account of our plea for the Ofcom committees to meet in public when possible and for us to be able to deliberate on their work and recommendations.
	There was a glaring omission in our debate and we were unfortunately unable to reach the amendment that dealt with it. We failed to consider the measure's competition aspects and their implications for the communications sector. Consequently, there will be two competition authorities: Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading. I fervently believe that the Bill should declare that, in cases of any doubt about which body should be the ultimate arbiter on competition matters, the OFT is the right body to rule on them.

Nick Harvey: We all agree with the hon. Lady that Ofcom should be a light-touch regulator. However, she is keen for the regulation of the BBC—a complex task—to be transferred to Ofcom and, if a competition issue arises, for Ofcom to defer to the OFT. In the world that she envisages, the BBC would barely be regulated and, if it deigned to do anything in competition terms that was deemed to conflict with anyone else, the case would simply be rolled over to the OFT.

Anne McIntosh: Those comments are interesting, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman confuses two matters. By "competition aspects", I mean, for example, media ownership. I served an apprenticeship in the part of the Commission in Brussels that deals with competition, and I am therefore mindful of the means that competition lawyers will employ if they believe that an uncompetitive practice is occurring. The hon. Gentleman confuses a true competition aspect, which the OFT should tackle, with my earlier comments about the BBC's public sector broadcasting obligations. I apologise to him if I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
	We have had the opportunity this evening to consider many points in some depth. It therefore gives me great pleasure to support the Bill, with the proviso that I am disappointed that many of the issues that we wanted to include remain open for discussion when we consider the main communications Bill.

Brian White: I am pleased that the Bill is receiving a Third Reading and that it will move us forward. However, a lot of nonsense was talked on Second Reading, in Committee and again tonight. That does not move the debate forward.
	As was said earlier, changes are happening all the time. Indeed, British Telecom's announcement on broadband wholesale prices shows that change has occurred since the end of our deliberations in Committee. I plead with the Minister to publish the communications Bill by the end of April or the beginning of May, even if all the i's have not been dotted. It is important to get it into the public domain and have a debate, even if Ministers have not made every decision. It is more important for the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to be up and running than for Ministers to do everything that they normally achieve before presenting a Bill to the House. There is a need to consider regulations, the EU framework and the work of the existing regulators and their relationship to the shadow Ofcom, and how that develops during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the communications Bill. Those are real issues.
	There is also a serious issue about the BBC. We must debate the BBC, its licence fee and its relationship to Ofcom. There is also a need to debate cross-media ownership, but these matters must not be confused and, in the communications Bill, must be tackled separately.
	I conclude with two heresies. There has been an awful lot of talk about convergence. Things are converging technically, but socially and in the way that people use technology, they are not. It is important that we understand how people use, or do not use, technology. We should not just assume that because it is technically possible to converge technologies, it will automatically happen. There is a danger that the policy assumptions of the Bill and the communications Bill are not solid in terms of the way in which people use technologies. I urge the Minister to understand what is happening in the real world, and not just the whizz-bang technological stuff.
	The second heresy concerns the role of regulators and whether existing models can cope in a world that is changing so fast. The economy is speeding up and changing. Ofcom will need to be adaptable, flexible and quick in its decision making, which is why the Minister was right in regard to the composition of the board. Things will need to be done quickly and, in setting up Ofcom, such imperatives will need to be recognised. The Minister recognises that it is important that when Ofcom is set up, the right people are chosen and that they understand the issues.
	Is this a step forward? The debate on the communications Bill will show a lot of areas of agreement, but it will also show some fundamental problems and disagreements. I hope that we concentrate on the disagreements and get the bits where we do agree into Ofcom as soon as possible.

Nick Harvey: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked what Ofcom is actually for and what the regulation of the communications industry is supposed to be all about. Do we need to have a specialist regulator for the communications industry, or could it just be regulated by the OFT and the other bodies that regulate industry and competition within industry?
	I believe that there is a justification for the communications industry having a specialist regulator and that Ofcom, in the shape proposed, is more or less the right way to go forward and certainly is the basis on which we can debate what this regulatory body ought to be.
	It is essential that Ofcom is allowed to take a view on what constitutes the public interest. The OFT is explicitly prevented from introducing into its considerations aspects of what constitutes the public interest. As I understand the Government's reforms, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's ability to enter into the chain of decision making in competition issues is forced back. The regulator—set up without a brief to take account of the public interest—makes competition decisions against what I referred to earlier as very dry economic criteria.
	If Ofcom, which is obviously going to need technical expertise relevant to this sector—and will also, rightly, have to consider competition issues—is not allowed to go beyond that and consider public interest issues, it will not achieve some of the purposes that are being envisaged for it. It certainly will not be fit to be the sole and total regulator of the BBC. I have misgivings about some of its other anticipated roles.
	When the communications Bill is published and we debate what Ofcom is for, we must decide either to give it explicit public interest powers or to retain for Parliament or the Secretary of State some ability to introduce considerations of public interest; otherwise, it would be virtually pointless to set the body up. All that it would add to the existing regulatory framework would be some specialist technical know-how. The question of what the body is for is so fundamental that we have probably expended too much time and endeavour on the paving Bill, which contains just seven clauses and a schedule and merely empowers the setting up of Ofcom and the hiring of offices and staff. The sooner we get on with the real debate, which publication of the draft Bill will begin, the better it will be.

Angela Watkinson: I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee that met for the many happy hours referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to discuss the establishment of an Office of Communications. Our debates centred on the size and composition of the new body and its initial functions in preparing for the regulatory duties across the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors that will be imposed on it by the communications Bill soon to come before the House. We also debated the vexed question of the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC, to which I shall return later.
	Clause 1 proposes that the membership of Ofcom should be determined by the Secretary of State and should be not fewer than three people and not more than six. Ofcom is to become an umbrella organisation replacing the existing regulators—the Independent Television Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, Oftel, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency. Concern remains that a body that may be comprised of as few as three people will be able to ensure that the interests of so many different services, groups and organisations are represented fully. I have received from a wide range of those organisations representations that certainly echo those concerns.
	Inclusion of the necessary range of professional expertise and divergence of experience and view will be extremely challenging. The appointment of a chairman and the members of Ofcom will rest with the Secretary of State. There should also be a chief executive and other executive members, but there is a question about that. Clause 1(5) states:
	"It shall be for the members of OFCOM . . . to determine whether there should be any executive members"
	and
	"to make any appointments".
	That will be an interesting exercise. Given that the maximum and minimum numbers for membership allow little flexibility, an Ofcom of three members would include a chairman, one member and a chief executive. Even an Ofcom of six members would include only a chairman, between one and four members and a chief executive. Clause 1(7) states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument modify the numbers".
	I hope that that opportunity will be taken.
	Much debate in Committee concentrated on whether the Bill should be concerned with Ofcom's future functions—it is, after all, only a paving Bill. I submit that the establishment of Ofcom cannot be readily separated from those functions or from the existing functions of the five regulators that it will replace. Representations have been received from a wide range of interest groups, all expressing individual concerns. For example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is particularly concerned about the special requirements and circumstances of individuals who are disabled and those of pensionable age. It has requested that an advisory committee be set up for disabled people.
	As my own mother was blind, I am aware from personal experience of the importance of both radio and television to blind people. Very few sight-impaired people are totally blind, and they often watch television in the company of sighted people. For those viewers, audio description is an important new technology. It adds to the existing soundtrack and enables blind people to build a better mental picture and understanding of the action. Currently, fewer than 50 people are receiving digital terrestrial television audio description—I apologise for that long title—as part of a trial. I hope that Ofcom will give high priority to supporting the development of that service, to enable a large number of people to benefit.
	There are 8.7 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, including 2 million with serious sight problems, who are more dependent on radio and television than most people, and many of whom have unsuitable equipment. That is an area where Ofcom could take the lead and ensure that the future needs of disabled people were met, but it will need specific expertise to do so.
	There is currently an obstacle to Christian and other religious broadcasters in applying for a UK broadcasting licence in the same way as their secular competitors. There is a call to remove the ban against religious persons and bodies applying for licences for national and regional analogue and digital terrestrial TV services and national analogue and digital and local digital radio services. I would urge Ofcom to look sympathetically at that area of demand.
	Even those already in possession of a licence are not without their problems. Premier Radio, London's Christian radio station, has been given a yellow card by the Radio Authority. That means that if the station does not mend its ways it could lose its licence. Premier Radio had 14 programming complaints and one advertising complaint lodged against it, which is far more than any other station listed. Every single complaint was from the Mysticism and Occultism Federation. Its website states that it has five part-time unpaid volunteers who monitor the media. Irony of ironies, the pretext for the group's monitoring and complaining is in fact pluralism. The group that seems determined to remove Premier Radio from the airwaves claims that it is actually committed to valuing and respecting the beliefs of others.

Simon Thomas: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. I do not see why the radio frequencies should not be opened up more to a diverse range of stations, as long as they can remain within the law and the regulation that Ofcom might seek to lay down, but that may well lead to the establishment of radio occult. Would the hon. Lady welcome that?

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), if only because it gives me the opportunity to try to pronounce the name of his constituency. I just wonder how large an audience such a station would attract.
	One is surprised to learn just how seriously those complaints were taken by the Radio Authority. The authority, or its future incarnation Ofcom, must be kept more accountable by the Secretary of State to expose vexatious complaints. Specific expertise is needed to overcome such problems.
	I shall now discuss the future status of the BBC. Currently, the BBC answers only to itself or to the Secretary of State. It would be far better for any future regulatory dispute to be decided between Ofcom and the BBC rather than with an elected politician.
	The BBC's public service remit will be largely self-regulation but with back stop powers resting with the Secretary of State. If the governors fail in that task, the Secretary of State may act to remedy the situation. The Secretary of State would also retain the power to approve new BBC licenced fee-funded services and material changes to existing services, although Ofcom will give formal advice on the market impact of such proposals. It is essential that the BBC retains public confidence and credibility in its editorial independence as an impartial public broadcaster, and that role would be more appropriately carried out by an independent Ofcom.
	A huge responsibility will rest on Ofcom in having control of the nation's communications—those conveyors of ideas, information and culture. The Orwellian opportunities are obvious. We must ensure that this new all-encompassing regulatory body has a light touch and transparent procedures, which will meet the continuing fast-moving developments and challenges facing the communications sector and take a balanced and fair view across the spectrum of media platforms. To succeed, it will need to be efficient and innovative and have an explicit commitment to providing first-class services to all sections of the viewing, listening and communicating public.

Simon Thomas: I, too, served on the Committee that considered the Bill, and its proceedings were very interesting and informative. On the whole, it considered the Bill at a reasonable pace and discussed issues that were worthy of debate. There were one or two examples of certain hon. Members perhaps taking up time in a dilatory way, but on the whole it was a model of how a Committee should work and the right amount of time was devoted to a Bill of this length.
	I cannot accept that we have discussed any issue that should not rightly have been considered in Committee or even on Report. It was right and proper for hon. Members to try to explore the Bill's paving element and its less welcome elements. Paving is a useful substance when it is put down to walk on—it opens the way—but it becomes a barrier if it is stacked up. When we started to consider the Bill, we were not quite sure whether we were looking at paving that would provide a nice, flat way forward or at an obstacle, and I am still not convinced which of those this Bill represents.
	On the whole, this is a genuine paving Bill, but it has always had a slightly worrying aspect: clause 2, which relates to Ofcom's initial function, states that
	"the function of OFCOM . . . is to do such things as they consider appropriate for facilitating the implementation of, or for securing the modification of, any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications."
	That clause gives powers to Ofcom very early in its existence, and we were right to explore in Committee how those powers may be used and to consider Ofcom's membership because it will set the tone for the forthcoming, fully fledged Ofcom, to which we now look forward.
	We await with interest the draft communications Bill that the Minister said he would introduce. In Committee, he clearly said that it would come in the spring. When he was pressed to say when spring time was, he said that it was a time of flowers and warm air. I have to tell him that the snowdrops are out, even in Ceredigion; that the daffodils are out in London; and that I saw frogspawn on my walk up the Nedd Fechan in Pontneddfechan on Sunday, so it is important to recognise that spring is on its way.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North–East (Brian White) that we now need to see that draft communications Bill. It does not matter whether it is complete because we have been promised pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, so we shall have plenty of time to consider it. I fear that, if we do not see that Bill early enough to continue some of our arguments, the suspicion will grow that the Government have sought to establish Ofcom as a nice, tidy way to deal with these things while further distancing themselves from accountability and responsibility for them.
	The matters of most interest to me are representation not only for Wales and Scotland, to give us a voice in Ofcom in whatever way that is arranged, but for disabled people, as well as the interesting issues raised about the number of people at Ofcom and the length of their service and how the body will be constituted. All those valid and valuable issues were raised in Committee, and, on the whole, the Minister dealt with them reasonably effectively, but one issue remains outstanding.
	Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are concerned that there is still no representation for Wales or Scotland or a method to consult them, as promised in the White Paper. There is no mention of having a member for Wales. We have extracted a promise that Ofcom will have an office in Wales, but we must be aware that it replaces five regulatory bodies, most of which already have in place a method for representing Wales as well as contacting and consulting the National Assembly on such matters. That is why the Assembly Cabinet made it clear that it wanted to choose a Welsh member of Ofcom. It has long been my party's policy that we should have a regulatory body for communications in Wales—Ofcom Cymru, or Ofcom Wales if hon. Members prefer. I accept that that was never on the agenda and have not pursued it. It is perhaps better addressed in a bigger political fight. Nevertheless, we are extremely disappointed that the Bill has fallen so far short of reflecting Welsh and Scottish needs.
	Despite the powers not being devolved to the National Assembly, it has a huge interest in communications, and in broadband in particular, because they do relate to the economic development of Wales. It funds broadband expansion in Wales and is a partner with the European Union in much of what is best in broadband in Wales. That is obvious to anyone who has ever pressed the fourth button on a television in Wales and seen the Welsh language channel, SpedwarC. The Assembly is charged by the Government of Wales Act 1998 to discuss such matters. They do not have to be devolved for it to have an interest and want to have a say.
	Unfortunately, it is not clear how discussions in the Assembly or thoughts in Wales on how the communications revolution should continue will be taken up by Ofcom and fed through to the decision-making processes in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and, to an extent, in the Department of Trade and Industry. That is a disappointing aspect of the Bill. We will of course explore such issues more thoroughly when we debate the communications Bill, and I look forward to advancing the case for Welsh and Scottish communications needs to be taken into account by the Government.

Michael Fabricant: We have come to the end of a long period of deliberation on what is a fairly small Bill. However, it was right to spend that time establishing the structures and, where possible, to discuss what needs to be put into place when the communications Bill is introduced.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is often right on technological matters. He was certainly right to say that what might be possible technically need not necessarily dictate the future. Studies in the United States show that people operate personal computers differently from the way in which they watch television. Convergence might mean that the PC and the television use the same screen, but in practice, as the hon. Gentleman said, that will probably not be the case because we watch television at a distance and operate a PC close up.
	Nevertheless, as I said when I argued that the BBC should be involved in Ofcom, time has moved on. There is greater convergence. Technology means that the BBC's position cannot be sustained. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) rightly explained that we are in a sustained period of recession, certainly as far as advertising revenue is concerned. The Independent Television Commission recently sent me some information. Between 1994 and 2000, the annual growth in independent television net advertising receipts was 8.6 per cent. That is a massive annual growth. Yet during 2001, ITV suffered losses in net advertising revenue that were larger than the average for the industry as a whole. Carlton reported its advertising revenue down by 13 per cent. for the year ending September 2001. Granada posted similar losses of 12 per cent.
	Those losses are partly due to the fact that the BBC has shown itself to be an excellent and competitive broadcaster. Since the birth of independent television in 1955, the BBC has managed to capture a larger audience share than ITV. However, the real reason for net advertising receipts falling is the fragility, as people see it, rightly or wrongly, of the economy in the future. That is even more reason to set up an Office of Communications, and that is why my Front-Bench colleagues and I welcome its introduction.
	However, we do not want Ofcom at any cost. We do not want a body that is flawed. I am not convinced that the shell organisation set up by the Bill will be flawed: it will exist only until a communications Bill goes through Parliament and is enacted. Incidentally, over the years the Government have promised to introduce legislation in many areas, but the legislation never appeared, so I want to be convinced that a communications Bill will be announced in the next Queen's Speech. It is important for the sake of the industry that a communications authority be established. It is terribly important that we get that right so that the BBC is not seen to be its own judge and jury, as I said earlier. Furthermore, it must be seen to be controlled in the best interests of the viewers and listeners, who after all pay for it.
	It is important also for the industry as a whole that we get this right. I do not want news corporations such as Berlusconi or Bertelsmann to take over the media in the United Kingdom and worldwide. Britain has so much to be proud of, including not only the BBC, which is the largest individual producer of radio and television programmes in the world, but stations such as Granada and Carlton, which have sales worldwide. British broadcasting has to be promoted, and we must have a structure that enables us to do that.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East would chide us with the fact that this is not only a question of controlling broadcasting bodies: we must also ensure that there is an expansion in digital technology in this country. It is a sad indictment of this Government that despite all the boasts made in the White Paper a year ago and in earlier White Papers, broadband has failed to expand in the UK, to such an extent that we are now 22nd in the world league.
	I hope that when the communications body is established it will manage to speed up that expansion; otherwise we will see a digital deficit, not only in regard to disabled people, as I said earlier, but in the nation as a whole, and that will cost us dear. I have no doubt that the will of the Government is to see that everyone becomes computer literate and has access to a PC on a broadband network so that they can apply their literacy. However, that requires a great deal more than the Prime Minister visiting a school and playing on a computer; a structure needs to be established.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—I call him my hon. Friend because we became great allies in Committee—is right to call for interests in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be represented in Ofcom, and not only because of the question of languages that exists in Wales. Incidentally, I had to smile wryly when he talked about the work of S4C, because while many people enjoy watching S4C, plenty of other people build tall aerials on their roof so that they can pick up Channel 4 from England—but that is not to say that I want to deprive Welsh viewers of S4C. I would like viewers in Wales to receive both S4C and Channel 4, and that may well be possible in future.

Simon Thomas: Not only will it be possible in future—it is possible now. The whole point of digitalisation is choice. What is important is getting the whole of Wales switched on to the digital revolution and making sure that there is someone to represent Wales and ensure that it is switched on, rather than relying on general, UK-wide figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports me in that.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the aim even of digital terrestrial television is to give people access to S4C and to Channel 4. That is what the Bill is all about—diversity and digital access, not digital disability.
	The Minister's position of insisting that the BBC should not be encompassed by Ofcom is unsustainable. If he does not grasp the nettle now, he will have to do it in 2005 or 2006, when the royal charter comes up for renewal—unless there is a general election in the meantime, in which case the task will fall to those who now sit on the Opposition Benches but who will then sit on the other side of the House.
	The BBC enjoys a unique position. I have resisted quoting the famous letter from Michael Hastings. It is arrogance in the extreme for the head of the political and parliamentary affairs unit of the BBC, which is a publicly funded body, to write to Members of Parliament saying:
	"An inappropriate level of attention has been focused on the BBC and its regulation through the Second Reading and Committee stages".
	I almost wonder whether it is a breach of privilege for someone to describe the legislative process as "inappropriate". Can hon. Members imagine civil servants at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport writing to tell me that it was "inappropriate" of me to mention in Committee the comment made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to the effect that their Department is "dysfunctional"? They probably thought it was inappropriate of me to say so, but they would never write to me about it, because it would be improper.
	It is equally improper of the BBC to write to Members of Parliament as Mr. Hastings did, and that is part of the problem. Some cogent points are made in other parts of the letter, but they are ruined by the arrogance that permeates the BBC because it is ultimately answerable to no one—and because it is answerable to no one, it thinks that it can get away with it. As I said, if the BBC fell under the auspices of Ofcom, it would find that Ofcom provided protection.
	I wish the Bill a fair wind, but I hope that the main communications Bill will be scrutinised seriously. I hope that during that scrutiny the Government will listen and be prepared to accept amendments to that Bill. They certainly were not willing to do so in the Committee on this one.

Anne McIntosh: With the leave of the House, I shall sum up for the official Opposition. I would hate to disappoint the Minister, who I am sure wants to keep the dialogue going a wee while longer.
	We have heard some interesting speeches on Third Reading. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who speaks with such authority and high regard for the technological ability of the industry. I regret that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has again confused the role of the Office of Fair Trading in dealing with competition matters and the BBC, whose public sector responsibilities we want to be brought within Ofcom's remit.
	Despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I hope that we have made Mr. Michael Hastings, for whom I have considerable affection, happy this evening, and that we have satisfied his
	"hope that this Wednesday's debate will be more constructive and will give due regard to the central, positive and creative role the BBC plays in the nation's cultural and education life."
	As I mentioned earlier, I continue to have the highest regard for the BBC, which can only be enhanced when we succeed in bringing its public sector provision, as well as its other provision, within the remit of Ofcom
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) spoke eloquently on the role of television and radio for the visually impaired. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) also said, although this is a paving Bill, it would have been opportune this evening for us to have regard for those with special needs.
	In summing up, let me express the clear disappointment felt by more than one party. We should not only have considered the composition of Ofcom but have had the opportunity to consider its functions. It has been extremely difficult in Committee and during the Bill's remaining stages to consider Ofcom's composition and functions separately. Perhaps the Minister could now admit his regret that the Government did not make that possible.

Kim Howells: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) for being such courteous and erudite spokespersons for their parties. I agreed with almost nothing that they said, but they said it very nicely. The hon. Member for North Devon is a fount of common sense—most of the time, anyway.
	It has been a real joy to watch the warmth and glow of the fraternal friendship that has developed between the Tories and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists. What a ménage à trois! I am only glad that it is after 9 o'clock and the watershed, such has been the passion with which they leapt into each other's arms.
	The Bill was introduced in another place, where it was thoroughly scrutinised and debated, in July 2001. That thoroughness has been continued as the Bill has progressed through the House. Discussion of it has covered a wide range of issues and given us a foretaste of some of the variety of topics that are likely to be debated in much greater detail when the communications Bill is published in a few weeks' time. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debates, and look forward to their future contributions.
	The Bill is in excellent shape and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Contracting Out

That the draft Contracting Out (Local Education Authority Functions) (England) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

OPERATION LANCET

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Stuart Bell: By my reckoning, this is the fifth Adjournment debate on Operation Lancet. However, it is the first to be held consequent upon a partial conclusion—that is, the 14 guilty pleas and the forced resignation of former Detective Superintendent Mallon from Cleveland police. Although Operation Lancet is not terminated, it might be said that, for the first time and with facts available, the House is able to have a reasoned—if short—debate.
	Operation Lancet has gone on for four and a half years. What has it been about? In part, it has been about allegations that a group of Middlesbrough detectives gave inducements such as drugs to criminals in order to gain information. There were suspicions that close personal relationships existed between some Cleveland police officers and people believed to be drug traffickers. Even if only a fraction of the complaints were true, the officers involved had behaved in a regular and systematic fashion, apparently safe in the knowledge that compromised colleagues would not betray their activities. When Mallon pleaded guilty to 14 disciplinary charges arising out of Operation Lancet, he converted these allegations in relation to drugs into facts.
	Operation Lancet has highlighted a culture among some Middlesbrough police officers who traded with drugs as their currency—a fact again confirmed by Mallon's guilty pleas. It found that drugs taken into police custody were not properly recorded or handled, or correctly disposed of by destruction. What happened to the unaccounted for drugs? They were given to prisoners in police cells in exchange for information, and they were used by police officers themselves. All of that is confirmed by Mallon's guilty pleas.
	Mallon based his entire policy of zero tolerance on one officer who was himself a known drug abuser and another who had already been removed from the CID for disciplinary reasons. According to the West Yorkshire police report on which Mallon relies, those two individuals were
	"the right tools to do the job".
	Having chosen the tools, it was hardly surprising even to the West Yorkshire police that he became less forthcoming in dealing with allegations about them. Even the West Yorkshire police accept that he dealt with those allegations in an unprofessional way.
	The facts are simple. Mallon failed to investigate an allegation that a female prisoner had been given heroin by a detective in his force. An employee of a firm of Middlesbrough solicitors told a civilian custody officer on 7 April 1997 that her client had indeed been supplied with heroin. That information was passed on to an inspector who informed Detective Superintendent Mallon. However, Mallon made no effort to investigate this allegation and indeed raised it directly with the detective concerned. He thus thwarted any operation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation. He has now pleaded guilty that between March 1997 and May 1997 he failed to investigate an allegation that a detective had supplied a controlled drug to a female prisoner.
	On 23 May 1997, it emerged that two detectives—the one who was a known drug abuser and the one who was a risk taker; or the "tools for the job", according to West Yorkshire police—had taken a prisoner from police cells to identify houses he had burgled, but in truth the prisoner was supplied with heroin and taken to a pub by the officers. That information comes from the West Yorkshire report on which Mallon relies. The prisoner was a known heroin addict and was on charges of theft and burglary. The detectives had stopped by a garage on the way to the pub and returned with some "gear"—a euphemism for controlled drugs. At the pub, the prisoner was given two pints of beer and allowed to use a controlled drug. Due to the drinks and drugs, and not quite knowing what he was doing or where he was, the prisoner signed a statement admitting to a number of offences that would be taken into consideration at his forthcoming trial. That was how the clear-up rate of crime was improved in Mallon's Middlesbrough.
	When the prisoner was returned to his prison cell, the custody officer noticed the remains of a wrap of heroin still in his possession. This was a roll of aluminium containing heroin which the prisoner had been given by one of the detectives and had already used. Traces remained on the aluminium.
	Mallon said to me on BBC television, on "North of Westminster", that allegations saying that he had pleaded guilty to drug-related offences were "lies". He also claimed in The Northern Echo that five of the allegations related to an incident in which it was claimed that a prisoner was taken out of a police station and given drugs. He says that he was satisfied that no drugs were passed. In fact, the drugs would end up in Holm House prison with the prisoner's belongings—the aluminium foil and the heroin clinging to them—when the prisoner was remanded to the prison. All these facts were uncovered by Operation Lancet, whose team ensured that the incident was thoroughly investigated.
	The fact that a prisoner had been given drugs by one of his detectives was known not only to Mallon. He sent one of the detectives back into the cell—prior to the prisoner's removal to Holm House—and ordered the custody sergeant to allow him access. The detective told the prisoner that he must keep his mouth shut—a prudent course which the prisoner had felt he should adopt anyway. Mallon then addressed junior officers in the force and told them they, too, must keep their mouths shut and forget about the incident. At this meeting, Mallon even praised the officer whom he knew to be on drugs. He did this in a hectoring and dismissive fashion, setting no example to the young officers at all.
	On 4 February 2002, Mallon pleaded guilty to failing to investigate allegations that detectives had supplied a controlled drug to a prisoner and, following his guilty plea, he was required to resign from the force. He also pleaded guilty to the fact that he did not pass on information in his possession when this incident was investigated by another officer.
	Zero tolerance seemed to be based on a drug-abusing detective and a risk-taking detective having obtained statements from a prisoner so sozzled on booze and heroin that he admitted to other offences. Not all members of the public were enamoured of the policy. Two of them made a number of serious allegations of criminal conduct against the two detectives—the drug abuser and the risk taker—or rather, the "tools for the job". The allegations were reported to a police constable who brought them to the attention of his inspector. A report was prepared by that inspector, but when the report was presented to Mallon, he deleted the majority of the allegations and instructed the inspector to prepare a diluted version. These were serious allegations that required investigation. The inspector retained the original report, which clearly showed that certain allegations had been deleted and that comments had been written on it by Mallon in his own handwriting. This document is a smoking gun in relation to Mallon's lies, and provides clear evidence that he was protecting officers who should have been prosecuted rather than protected.
	Mallon has already pleaded guilty to all the above charges, and accepted that they amount to neglect of duty, misconduct to a member of a police force, falsehood and prevarication, and discreditable conduct. For this, too, he was required to resign. The passing of drugs and the cover-up thereof are serious disciplinary offences to which to plead guilty, along with the other guilty pleas. I should add that had Mallon made his guilty pleas to the West Yorkshire police—who conducted a review of the evidence—they would, of necessity, have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient standard of proof to support a criminal prosecution.
	The West Yorkshire police report says that, given Mallon's denials of wrongdoing, it would be difficult to prove criminality. But Mallon denies no more; he has pleaded guilty to wrongdoing and to criminality. He has also pleaded guilty to failing to investigate reports that drug dealers were being tipped off to the imminence of a drug raid.
	Police officers executed a search warrant in respect of drugs that might be found on premises in Marton road, Middlesbrough. On their arrival it became evident that the occupier had been warned. No drugs were found. One of the officers dialled 1471, and obtained details of the last incoming call before the search. The number was that of Middlesbrough police station.
	Mallon caused no inquiries to be made, because he knew who had made the call and why he had made it. The house that was raided had been the house of not only a drug dealer but an informant. He was on the books of Middlesbrough CID during Ray Mallon's watch. Certainly he would not be a witness who might have been relied on had Mallon ever been brought before a criminal court.
	On that guilty plea, too, Mallon was required to resign. He also pleaded guilty to lying—on 27 November 1997, when being interviewed for police purposes. He was, in fact, required to resign on 11 of the 14 charges to which he pleaded guilty.
	It must also to be said that when allegations against Mallon's officers became a flood rather than a trickle, Mallon stayed mum. He declined to impart any of his knowledge to Operation Lancet's inquiry team. He hindered the operation from the outset and ensured that it stretched far beyond its natural life, at a heavy cost to the taxpayer—a cost of £3.3 million, not the £7 million tagged to it by the operation's detractors.
	Of that, £1.9 million has been returned by central Government to local ratepayers; but Mallon perpetrated a fraud on those ratepayers. He made allegations about key members of the Operation Lancet inquiry team, requiring each and every allegation to be investigated. That cost the ratepayer £369,223. Needless to say, none of Mallon's allegations were substantiated. Then there were the costs specific to him within Operation Lancet—some £320,589—as well as, of course, a proportion of the operation's online costs. Mallon gave the Teesside ratepayer a total bill of £689,812, all of which would have been saved had he fully co-operated with Operation Lancet and pleaded guilty to the disciplinary offences at the outset.
	Why did Mallon do it? Why did he ruin a police career? He breached those disciplines and committed those offences, knowingly and deliberately, because he did not wish to damage his reputation as Robocop, because he did not want the public to know that his policy was based on passing drugs for information, obtaining admissions from prisoners of other offences they might or might not have committed, clearing up the crime rate in an entirely bogus fashion—on false pretences—and using drug-abusing and risk-taking detectives, his "tools for the job", to do it.
	This was his policy. This was his watch. It is by his own mouth and his own guilty pleas that he stands convicted. His vanity was such that he preferred to turn a blind eye to drug dealing rather than acting as a senior police officer with duties in the force and to the local community.
	We do not need a police force of zero tolerance that rides roughshod over human rights. The streets may be clear in totalitarian countries, but we do not want their tactics here. We have, and must abide by, the rule of law. Middlesbrough people deserved better. They did not deserve to be deceived by Mallon.
	They deserve, and have now got, a dedicated police force acting within—rather than without—the law.
	Mallon walked on the wild side. He pleaded guilty to 14 disciplinary offences, and was forced to resign from the force. The evidence against him was such that, had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been found guilty. He knew all along that he was guilty, and he will be guilty to the end of his days.
	I am glad to say that Cleveland police are confronting daily drug problems in Middlesbrough and elsewhere on Teesside. Their policy is to arrest a drug dealer a day, and by Monday of this week 134 operations—involving searches of people, vehicles and premises—have been carried out in the Middlesbrough district alone. Some 127 warrants have been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and 122 people have been arrested, 75 per cent. of whom were male. Drugs to the value of £12,500 have been recovered, and £24,500 in cash has been seized. Positive results have been achieved in 70 of the 134 operations.
	I am grateful to the Minister for listening courteously to me as I have given the background to Operation Lancet. In the short time available, I ask him to confirm that, on two separate occasions, Mallon entered unequivocal guilty pleas to all 14 disciplinary charges after having maintained his innocence for more than four years; that the offences were drug-related and linked to a culture of passing drugs in prison cells to gain information, tipping off drug houses of impending raids, and using drug addicts as informers; and that such disciplinary charges are extremely serious. Mallon was a senior officer with 23 years in the service at the time that the offences were committed, and because of their seriousness he was required to resign from the service forthwith.
	I also ask the Minister to confirm that the offences were not, as one noble Lord described them, "minor matters"; that members of the Cleveland police authority unanimously proposed that all papers relating to Operation Lancet be eventually returned to the Crown Prosecution Service, having regard to Mallon's guilty pleas; that Mallon was not cleared of criminal conduct in June 2000 or at any other time; and that West Yorkshire police had to agree that, given the lifestyles, convictions and nature of the individuals with whom Mallon was dealing—drug-abusing detectives and informants who were drug dealers themselves—it would have been impossible to reach a conviction beyond reasonable doubt before the Mallon pleas.
	I also ask the Minister to spare a thought for the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, who has been much maligned throughout Operation Lancet. He is the oldest chief constable in the country. He could have retired two years ago, but he wished to see Operation Lancet through to its conclusion. He wanted to leave behind a decent and efficient police force that is free from the taint of corruption. He wanted to confront the social problems of our time, which are not of his making, and to create a police force able and willing to work with the public, notwithstanding the difficulties. He should be praised, not berated, for those policies, and I trust that the Minister agrees.
	The Taylor review will inform the deliberations of the Home Office in establishing a new independent police complaints commission. Cleveland police have contributed to the review, which will make its report to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must ensure that Mallon's delaying tactics and allegations against key members of the Operation Lancet team can never be repeated. In the form of Operation Lancet, they have cost the taxpayer dear. I thank the Minister in advance for his answers.
	The debate might seem routine, but it goes to the heart of our society. Do we want a society that is decent and built on the rule of law or one in which anything goes, rules can be bent and the rule of law discarded? I know the sort of society that I want, that the Minister wants and that the people want.

Bob Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on initiating a debate about the investigation of misconduct in Cleveland police, which continues to attract interest and concern locally and nationally. I shall not be able to answer all my hon. Friend's points in the time that he has left me, but he well understands that. He believed that it was more important to get his comments on the record.
	Public confidence in the police service rests on a reputation for integrity. When allegations of corruption or misconduct are made and the service's reputation is brought into question, it is important that thorough scrutiny takes place to establish the facts and determine the appropriate action.
	It would have been entirely wrong if the force had not investigated the serious allegations of corruption. Cleveland police acted robustly by initiating an investigation into allegations in the case that we are considering. Although the investigation concluded in November 2000, the disciplinary process has ensured its continued high profile. That has been especially true of the case involving Ray Mallon.
	Mr. Mallon, a senior police officer has, according to his own unequivocal admissions, committed serious acts of misconduct. They include failing to investigate allegations involving the misuse of drugs and giving false statements. Integrity has to be fundamental to the police service, and those matters are therefore serious. Six other officers remain suspended.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that if any appeals result from a disciplinary hearing, the Home Secretary may be called to make the judgment as the appellate authority. It is therefore not for me to comment on the details of any ongoing case.
	As my hon. Friend stated, neither Mr. Mallon nor anyone else has appeared in court because of Lancet. The Crown Prosecution Service decided that no criminal charges should be brought. Again, that is a matter for the police and the CPS, not Ministers.
	My hon. Friend said that there had been calls for issues arising from Lancet to be resubmitted to the CPS. That is entirely a matter for Cleveland police. Neither the Home Secretary nor I can play any role in that.
	Let me ensure in the time remaining that I answer all my hon. Friend's specific questions. I can confirm that Ray Mallon entered pleas of guilty on two separate occasions to all 14 disciplinary charges.
	The specific charges were serious, and because of that, Mr. Mallon was required to resign from the police service forthwith. He pleaded guilty to giving false statements at interviews, and my hon. Friend is right that the police authority has asked the chief constable to consider resubmitting the issue to the CPS. My hon. Friend knows the answer to his question about whether the issues have been before a court. I can confirm that Mr. Mallon's case concerned failure to investigate allegations involving the misuse of drugs.
	I appreciate that the considerable cost and time taken by the investigation has been a source of concern and frustration and that such major investigations can place a significant burden on the budget of a small force such as Cleveland.

Ashok Kumar: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Ainsworth: No. These debates are for the Back Bencher in whose name the debate is tabled. It is for them to decide how the time is allocated. It is not for Front-Bench spokesmen to decide how the debates are used.
	The total cost of Lancet was £3.25 million. A further £690,000 has been spent on associated investigations and the disciplinary hearing against Mr. Mallon. In these exceptional circumstances, the then Home Secretary authorised a contribution towards these costs of £1.9 million from Home Office funds.
	I appreciate the difficulties that Cleveland police and the chief constable have experienced and the burden placed upon them by Lancet. I gladly take this opportunity to recognise the work that they are doing now. With my responsibility for drugs, I can welcome particularly the structures that they have put in place and the efforts that they are making to combat drug trafficking, such as the dealer-a-day campaign.
	My hon. Friend called upon the Government to provide a fast-track procedure for all disciplinary measures. A fast-track procedure was introduced when the new police misconduct procedures were established in April 1999. Those procedures provide for exceptional cases of gross misconduct to be dealt with swiftly. The fast-track procedures are used rarely. I think that that is generally right. Most cases should be dealt with through the normal route, but I will reflect on my hon. Friend's comments about speeding up the process.
	The important thing is to ensure that lessons from Lancet are not forgotten now and then repeated in the future. The Government are committed to reform of the police complaints system. We are also determined to learn from Lancet. The Government instigated a review of Lancet as a case study.
	Following the unfortunate death of Sir John Hoddinott who was originally asked to carry out the review, William Taylor, formerly Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland undertook to complete it—it will be completed shortly. It will not reconsider the conclusions of Lancet; the terms of reference were drawn up specifically with this in mind. It will inform the Government's policy as to the new system that we have in mind.
	The problems of the present system in dealing with complex, long-running investigations have been a significant cause for dissatisfaction within the police service and with the public. We need to be confident that the new system will be robust enough to deal with the most testing cases.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.